TARA CHAND Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this petition petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.3.1997 and for writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and contest the same in accordance with law.

(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 impleading the petitioner and respondent No. 3 as respondents. According to the case of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were joint tenant in the building in question. It was on 29.10.1994 that the Prescribed Authority noticed on the order sheet of the case that the notices sent under registered cover were not returned back, and the registration receipt No. 8 Gha/1 and 3 Gha/2 were available on record. It was also noted that notices were affixed on the door of the residence of the petitioner, as according to the noting on the summon issued against the petitioner, he refused to accept the same, therefore, the service of summon was held sufficient. The case was directed to put up on 7.11.1994. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were permitted to file their written statement by the said date. On 7.11.1994 the Prescribed Authority noted that written statements were not filed on behalf of the opposite parties, and that they were absent, therefore, the case was directed to proceed exparte and 28.11.1994 was fixed in the case. Thereafter it was on 12.3.1997 that an application for recalling the orders dated 29.10.1994 and 7.11.1994 was filed by the petitioner as by that time the matter was pending on the ground that he had no knowledge or notice of the pendency of the case in the Court of Prescribed Authority. The said application was objected to and opposed by the respondent No. 2. The Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 18.3.1997 rejected the application dated 12.3.1997. Petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed the present petition and challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings of the case pending before the Prescribed Authority. It was also submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 being joint tenant, the summons issued by the Prescribed Authority have been served upon the respondent No. 3 and he was participating in the proceedings, petitioner deliberately did not appear before the Court inspite of the fact that he had full knowledge of the proceedings, with a view to delay and linger on the proceedings of the case, therefore no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out.