M.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner and opposite parties No. 2 to 5 are the tenants of the shop in dispute situate at Bazari Road, Deoria. Opposite party No. 2 is the landlady. The short facts: The opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for release of the said shop. Notices were served on the petitioner and opposite party No. 5. Opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 could not be served inspite of the fact that notices were sent to them under registered cover. The said letters were returned unserved.
(2.) THE release application was filed by the opposite party No. 2 in January 1985 (case No. 15 of 1985). It appears that the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 could successfully, evade service for four years. Feeling helpless the opposite party No. 2 filed an application (31 -C) praying that service on these opposite parties may be effected by publication. The petitioner filed an objection. The Prescribed Authority rejected the said objection and allowed the application of the opposite party No. 2 by means of the impugned order. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The only, question involved in this case is whether the Prescribed Authority had any power under the Act or the Rules to pass an order for service of notice by publication.
(3.) THE contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that there was no provision under the Act and the Rules for effecting service by publication.;