- (1.) Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioners. It appears that the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority, Meerut in Case No. 15/2004 has passed release order on 16.5.2006. The petitioners claiming themselves to be tenant in the aforesaid premises have filed an application under section 16(5) read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 for recall of the order dated 16.5.2006 on 23.5.2006. It is contended that the Counsel for the petitioners has been appearing before the authority concerned but on one date i.e., 6.9.2007 Counsel did not appear, however, one of the petitioner was present but the petitioners' application was rejected by the delegated authority.
(2.) For recall of the said order, the petitioners have filed another application and that application was also rejected on 25.9.2007.
(3.) Aggrieved by the above order, a revision has been filed by the petitioner. That too was dismissed on 22.12.2009. Sri Rahul Sahai learned Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned orders, submitted before the Court that orders dated 6.9.2007 and 25.9.2007 are cryptic one as no reason has been assigned while rejecting petitioner's application. In his submissions, the Revisional Court has also taken a very technical view of the matter and dismissed revision. Sri Sahai has further submitted that the matter ought to be heard on merit as the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity of hearing due to which serious prejudice is going to cause.;