- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 31 -8-1999 whereby the application filed by the petitioner to recall the ex-parte order passed in revision, has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) with the allega tions that the tenant has vacated the same, it should be declared as vacant and further his need is bona fide, it should be released. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed the application filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 filed a revision alleging that the petitioner has obtained ex-parte order without any notice to him. He denied that the petitioner was owner/landlord of the property in dispute. He alleged that he is owner of the property. The Rent Control. and Eviction Officer passed an order releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 filed an application to review the said order under Section 16 (5) of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Of ficer on the allegation that the Respon dent No. 2 is owner of the property and the petitioner, had by concealment of the fact, obtained ex-parte release order in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the said application on 31-3-1986. Respondent No. 2 filed a revision against this order. The revision was allowed by the Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge on 27-10-1997. The petitioner filed an application to recall the said order. The application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31-8-1999. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 1 has taken the view that there was no justifiable ground to recall the order passed in revision. I have perused the impugned order and considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, I find that the order was passed ex-parte when he had fallen ill.
(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 31-8-1999 and 27-10-1997 are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the revision afresh on merits and in accord ance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.;