TURAB ALI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, ETAWAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the petition was being argued for admission, Sri Dinesh Kakkar filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2. He was granted time for filing the counter affidavit. In spite of the time granted for filing counter-affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed but he has made oral submissions.

(2.) The petitioner is tenant of house as well as a shop. Proceedings under Sec. 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 were initiated against him before the Prescribed Authority, Etawah. It appears that the registered notices were sent to the petitioner which were received back unserved. Thereafter, was alleged that the notices were affixed an on the basis of the same, the service was held to be sufficient and an ex parte order was passed on 30th July, 1984. Though, the order under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Act is alleged to have been passed on 30th July, 1984, yet the landlord-respondent did not get the said order executed till the year 1987. It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner came to know that he was going to be evicted on the basis of the order obtained in 1984, he filed an application before the Prescribed, Authority for setting aside the ex parte order. The said application has been rejected on the ground that the application was barred by time and the explanations offered by the petitioner, were considered to be insufficient.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.