RAM AVTAR AGARAWAL Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 1 A.K. Kansal is the landlord of the shops in dispute which are two in number (1100 and 1101). Landlord filed release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 registered as P.A. Case No. 89 of 199 on the file of prescribed authority/JSCC, Meerut. In the release application only Sushil Kumar son of Bihari Lal respondent No. 2 was made opposite party. Initially release application was allowed but the Appellate Court set aside the said order on the ground that alongwith Sushil Kumar his father Bihari Lal and Subhash Chand son of Bihari Lal were also the tenants hence they were necessary parties. Accordingly, Bihari Lal and Subhash Chand were also impleaded as opposite parties in the release application. During pendency of release application after remand Bihari Lal died and petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 son and daughters of Bihari Lal were impleaded at the place of Bihari Lal as his legal representatives. The other two sons of Bihari Lal i.e. Sushil Kumar and Subhash Chand respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were already parties as tenants.

(2.) NOTICES were issued to the legal representatives of Bihari Lal. Prescribed authority by order dated 6.1.2001, Annexure 2 to the writ petition held service upon petitioner to be sufficient, as registered envelope did not return even after thirty days. By the same order service upon other two legal representatives of Bihari Lal i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was also held to be sufficient. Thereafter, prescribed authority by the next order dated 25.1.2001 directed the case to proceed ex parte against legal representatives of Bihari Lal including the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner on 11.7.2003 filed application for recalling' the order dated 25.1.2001 stating therein that he came to know about the said order only on 6.7.2003.

(3.) IN my opinion as service was presumed under Order 5, Rule 19 -A, C.P.C. due to non return of registered envelope within thirty days) hence it was a fit case for setting aside the order directing the case to proceed ex parte. Strict principles of C.P.C. do not apply to release proceedings under section 21 of the act. It is not necessary in such proceedings to pass the order to proceed ex parte in any case as the release application had not been decided hence it was in the interest of justice to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is always desirable to decide the case after hearing all the parties concerned.