- (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The respondent landlord filed an application for release under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 wherein the petitioner tenant preferred his objection and after the parties had led their evidence, the release application was allowed by an exhaustive and detailed order dated 18.2.2009 directing the petitioner tenant to vacate the premises within a month. Instead of challenging the said order, the petitioner tenant made an application for review dated 7.3.2009 on the ground that the Prescribed Authority has not correctly decided the release application.
(2.) After the parties had filed their objections, the review application was fixed for arguments on 5.12.2009 but an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that his Counsel is busy in the High Court. The adjournment was opposed especially on the ground of Order XVII, Rule 2(c), C.P.C. The Court had no other option but to reject the adjournment. Thereafter it heard the review application which was also rejected on merits. Yet again an application for recall of the order dated 5.12.2009 was filed which has also been rejected vide order dated 16.1.2010. Both these orders are under challenge in this petition.
(3.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Court below should have adjourned the hearing of the review application and both the orders are ex parte and vitiated.;