- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 24-10-1998, whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 2-5-1998 was rejected, and the order of the appellate authority dated 29-2-2000, confirming the said order.
(2.) THE landlord-Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, with the allegations that he required the disputed shop for his son, Sachin Gupta. THE notice was issued to the petitioner. Report came that he had refused that. It was taken as sufficient service and the prescribed authority allowed the applica tion on 2-5-1998 against the petitioner. THE petitioner filed an application on 7-8-1998 to recall the said order on the ground that he had not received the notice alleged to have been sent to him. THE prescribed authority rejected this applica tion on 24-10-1998. THE petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed on 29-2-2000. I have heard Sri M. M. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner arid Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents. The version of the petitioner was that he had not received the notice alleged to have been sent by the prescribed authority on the application-being filed by the landlord-respondent under Section 21 (l) (a)of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The' petitioner was given another notice which was alleged to have been received by him personally. He has denied that it contained his signature. The prescribed authority rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain as how he came to know about it. The contention of the petitioner that he came to know through some other person. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. .
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, 1 find that the petitioner had denied his signature on the notice. None of the par ties had produced the expert evidence. The process server had earlier reported that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice and there was no explanation as to why the petitioner would accept the notice when it was given the next time. The per son who had refused the notice earlier, if his intention was to avoid it, would not accept the same on the second time as well. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the order passed by the respondents are quashed. The applica tion for restoration shall be allowed on payment of Rs. 5,000 payable as cost to the landlord-respondent by a bank-draft within a month from today. In case this amount is not deposited, this writ petition shall stand dismissed.;