VINOD KUMAR Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.4.1999 (Annexure 15 to writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4.

(2.) Petitioner who is tenant of the shop in dispute since long and is carrying on his business and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute.

(3.) It appears that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed against petitioner on 8.1.1993. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 1993. It has been stated that no notices were ever served upon petitioner. However, tenant came to know regarding the aforesaid proceedings and put his appearance on 13.5.1993. Then an application was filed on behalf of respondent- landlord to withdraw the case. The aforesaid application was allowed on 20.5.1993. Another application was filed on 29.5.1993 and co-landlord Ram Prakash was made respondent No. 1 while petitioner was made respondent No. 2. Notices by registered post were issued on 29.5.1993 and it was actually sent on 31.5.1993. 5.7.1993 was the date fixed. An application was moved by landlord-respondent that service may be deemed to be sufficient on petitioner. Thereafter several dates were fixed and on 13.9.1993, the prescribed authority found that service was not done as neither registered envelope is returned nor acknowledgment due and it was not on record. Then certificate was filed by respondent-landlord issued by post master regarding delivery of registered notice on 30.9.1993. Then prescribed authority proceeded and release the accommodation in dispute on 25.11.1993. While deciding the case prescribed authority found that notice given by landlord was dated 23.11.1992 for which a certificate has been filed.