LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-90

UMA SHANKER Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MUNSIF

Decided On April 23, 2004
UMA SHANKER Appellant
V/S
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/MUNSIF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord of the shop in question and had filed an application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop. It was alleged that the original tenant had died in the year 1979 and after his death, the sons of the original tenant being respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were neither living in Chandausi nor were carrying on any business from the shop in question and that the said shop had been sublet to another person. It was also alleged that the shop in question was required for the petitioner's son, who was unemployed. Notices were sent to the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of the Court. The process server submitted a report that the respondent No. 3, mother of the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 refused to accept the notice and accordingly the notice was served upon the respondents by affixation. Thereafter, the prescribed authority further directed the petitioner to publish the notice in the newspaper, which was subsequently published. Inspite of the publication of the notice in the newspaper and affixation of the notices, the respondents did not appear before the prescribed authority. Accordingly, the case proceeded ex parte and the prescribed authority by order dated 7.2.1984 allowed the application and released the shop in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) On the basis of the order of the prescribed authority, the petitioner was given physical possession of the shop w.e.f. 27.5.1984. After possession of the premises was handed over to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for recalling the ex parte order. The prescribed authority vide order dated 20.2.1990 allowed the application of the respondents and recalled its order dated 7.2.1984.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority dated 20.2.1990, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed by order dated 3.7.1990 on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable.