R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st January 1989 passed by the prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge Kanpur City, in Rent Case No. 44 of 1988, allowing the release application of the respondent - -Landlord by ex parte order and the order of the Fourth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Rent Application No. 23/74 of 1989, Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Sarla Arya, vide its order dated 20/22nd May 1989 rejecting the petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte decree. The necessary facts of the case are that, an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act was filed by the respondent No. 1 landlord for release of the premises in dispute, of which the petitioner is a tenant, fixing 24th May 1988 for putting in appearance. On 1st May 1988 the service upon the petitioner was held not to be sufficient as the petitioner had to shift from Govindnagar, Kanpur, for some time and lived in a house in Heerganj, Kanpur City, due to the communal riots held all over the country in the year 1984. The prescribed authority by another order dated 2nd June 1988 issued notice fixing 7th July 1988. On this notice it is stated that the service was done on the petitioner on 14th June 1988. The service report has been filed as annexure -"1" to the writ petition. This annexure '1' to the writ petition shows that the service is alleged to have been affected by affixation' and pasting. This service report reads as under: Peon report. - -Today on 14 -6 -1988, I went to House No. 87/8 -A Heerganj, Kanpur and inquired about the residence of Smt. Jaswant Kaur C/o. Rajendra Building. At the spot, I met with one Sardarji, who read the summon orally and informed me that my mother has gone out. On inquiry that when she will come back nobody accepted copy of the summon, compelled the summon was pasted in the house today. Prayag Narain, service of summon verified. This report of the peon is neither signed by any witness nor there is any affidavit of process server nor pasting in done in the presence of any witness nor it is stated that son of the petitioner informed the process server in presence of any witness. No reason has been assigned regarding the absence of the petitioner. On 7th July 1988 the aforesaid service report was held to be sufficient and it was noted in the order sheet "service is sufficient" on opposite party No. 3 through her son." Subsequently, on the same day an application by the respondent - -landlord for getting the house inspected was allowed and it was ordered that let the premises inspected in the light of application, commissioner submitted report on 27th July 1988. On the basis of ex parte evidence and the Advocate commissioner's report the respondent's landlord release application was allowed vide order dated 21st January 1989.
(2.) COMING to know of the said ex parte order the petitioner filed an application on 9 -2 -1989 for setting aside ex parte order on the ground that No. notice of the case has been served on her. This application was duly supported by an affidavit. Fourth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, acting as prescribed authority, Kanpur, has rejected the said application vide his order dated 20/22nd May, 1989, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In the impugned order the prescribed authority has held the service of the peon referred to earlier in this judgment to be sufficient holding that the service of summons were made on the son of the petitioner in her absence, which is sufficient. The prescribed authority has also held that steps were also taken by sending the notice through registered post even though there is no mention in the record for holding the service to be sufficient on the ground of letter being sent by registered post, it should be presumed that the service was also made by registered post. The third ground for rejecting the application was that the inspection report of the Advocate Commissioner's shows that the son of the petitioner was present at the time of inspection and, as such, the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings and she knowingly did not come forward to contest the case and to delay the proceedings. On this basis the application has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to support the impugned order.
(3.) THERE is yet another important aspect of the matter it has been stated in para '1' of the writ petition that the respondent - -landlord is wife of very influential legal practising Advocate in Kanpur Civil Court. No counter affidavit has been filed in the case.;