AAYAL DAS Vs. SHELENDRA AGRAWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The order dated 4.7.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority on the application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 24.3.2014 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Challenge is on the ground that the satisfaction with regard to service of notice through publication in daily newspaper 'Nisha Naresh' cannot be held sufficient. It is not one of the mode of service of notice as prescribed under Rule 28 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. It is recorded by the court below that the notices were sent thrice at the address of the petitioner-tenant but they have been returned back with the endorsement that no one met at the place and the information has been given to the family members. The notice has been sent to the place of business of the petitioner, therefore,endorsement made by the process server that the information was given to the family members do not seem to be correct. The Prescribed Authority did not record its satisfaction with regard to service of notice by registered post and only service by publication was accepted.The adverse inference has been drawn on the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in the application for recall of the exparte order that he was well aware of the registered notice which were sent at his address.