VIJAI BAHADUR SINGH Vs. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Vijai Bahadur Singh, who is tenant of house No, 2139 Dempior Nagar, Mathura has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 6-2-1979 (Annexure '1') passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the landlord's application under Sec. 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, exparte and also for quashing the order dated 10-11-1979 (Annexure 5) dismissing the petitioner's. application made under rule 32 for setting aside the exparte order.

(2.) There is no dispute that respondent No. 2 is landlord and the petitioner tenant of the premises in question. The petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was posted at Mathura but later on transferred to Agra and subsequently to Banda. The landlord filed an application under Sec. 21 of Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the premises on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for his own use as well as for the growing needs of his family. Notice of the application was sent to the tenant but that she not personally served on him. The petitioner was posted in district Banda at that time but some of his family members were residing in the premises in question. However, the notice dated 6-3-1978 was purported to have been served on Vikran Singh, son of the petitioner, as the notice contained an endorsement that the petitioner was residing at Banda. It appears that the service of the notice dated 6-3-1975 was not treated to be sufficient and thereafter another notice dated 8-5-1978 was again issued to the petitioner. That notice was reported to have been received by Sri Ravindra Bahadur Singh, another son of the petitioner. On 17-7-1978 one N.N. Chatterji, Advocate, filed an application on behalf of the tenant praying for time. Time was allowed but on the next day when the case was taken up no one appeared for the tenant, and the case proceeded exparte and ultimately on 6-2-1979 a ex-parte order allowing the application under Sec. 21 was passed.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application for restoration under Rule 32 alleging that no notice was ever served either on him or any of his sons nor he or his sons had ever engaged H.N. Chatterji, Advocate, to file any application in the case. According to him the landlord himself manipulated and set up Chatterji to move an application on his behalf without any instructions from him. The petitioner alleged that he had absolutely no knowledge of this case and what for the first time on 5-7-1979 be came to know from the landlord himself that he had filed an application under Sec. 21 and obtained an ex-parte order of release in his favour. Thereupon he got the record inspected and filed a restoration application on 7-7-1979.