SACHIN GOENKA Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri Dharmpal Singh, learned Senior Counsel, along with Sri P. K. Dubey and Sri S. Niranjan, learned Counsel for landlords peti tioners, and Sri Mool Bihari Saxena along with Sri Saurabh Srivastava learned Counsel for tenants-respondents.

(2.) PROPERTY in dispute is a shop situate in Kanpur Nagar, rent of which was Rs. 200/- per month. Landlords-petitioners filed release application against tenants-respondents under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bona fide need in the form of Rent Case No. 42 of 2001, which was allowed ex parte on 23. 3. 2002 by Prescribed Authority/additional Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar. Restoration application was rejected on 16. 8. 2003. Thereafter, execution case was filed, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 11/23 of 2003. Against order allowing the release application, tenants had filed Rent Appeal No. 94 of 2004, which was allowed by Vth A. D. J. , Kanpur Nagar on 24. 3. 2005 ex parte however it appears that the said order was not communicated to the Executing Court. Appellate Court had remanded the matter. Thereafter, release applica tion was dismissed in default on 8. 9. 2005. According to the landlords, as the landlords were not aware of order of remand passed by the Appellate Court, hence they could not appear in the release application.

(3.) THEREAFTER, landlords filed restoration application before appellate Court and also a restoration application before Trial Court for setting aside the order dated 8. 9. 2005, through which release application was dismissed in de fault.