RAEESAN Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/CIVIL JUDGE MOHANLALGANJ LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 who are the landlords of the premises in question and the petitioners its tenants, initiated proceedings for eviction by making an applicant under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'act' ). The notices/summons were issued to the petitioner and 27. 1. 2006 was the date fixed on which date they put in appearance by filing a vakalatnama. Next date fixed was 27. 3. 2006 on which the petitioners did not appear, therefore, the application for release was directed to proceed ex-parte against them. Finally on 8. 11. 2006 an ex-parte order was passed allowing the application of the landlord for release of the building in question. The petitioner preferred an application for recall of the order dated 8. 11. 2006. The opposite party No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 6. 8. 2007 rejected the said application and maintained the ex-parte order for release. It is the said order, i. e. 6. 8. 2007 which is under challenge in the instant petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri T. C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, Caveator for opposite party No. 3.

(3.) SRI Gupta vehemently argued that on 27. 1. 2006 the Counsel for the petitioners noted down in his life 29. 3. 2006 as the next date fixed instead of 27. 3. 2006. He further submitted that it was only when execution proceeded against the petitioners that they learnt about the ex-parte decree dated 8. 11. 2006 and immediately thereafter on 21. 2. 2007 they preferred an application for recall of the ex-parte order. As per his submission since the application for release has been allowed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, therefore, the said order is unsustainable in law and the petitioners cannot be evicted on the basis of ex-parte order. He further argued that after 27. 3. 2006 the case was transferred by the District Judge to various Court, therefore, too it could not be ascertained as to where would the case be taken up.