- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 4-9-2003 (Annexure- 6 to the writ petition) passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE dispute relates to an accommodation, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 9-8-2002 passed by the learned ACMM/prescribed Authority, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar referred to hereinafter. THE said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed accommodation". From a perusal of the averments in the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the petitioner for the release of the disputed accommodation. It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 9-8- 2002 passed by the learned ACMM/prescribed Authority, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar, the said release application was allowed. Thereupon, it appears, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 56 of 2002. A copy of the memorandum of the said appeal has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT further appears that by the order dated 18-2-2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, the said Rent Appeal No. 56 of 2002 was dismissed in default. Copy of the said order dated 18-2- 2003 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said order dated 18-2-2003 shows that an adjournment application was filed on 18-2-2003 on behalf of the petitioner. In regard to the said adjournment application, the said order dated 18-2-2003, inter alia, stated as follows: "adjournment application was moved but there is no Vakalatnama it is not properly signed". Thereafter, it appears that an application dated 28-2-2003/3- 3-2003 was filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, praying for recalling/setting aside the said order dated 18-2- 2003 and restoring the said Rent Appeal No. 56 of 2002 to its original number. The said restoration application was supported by an affidavit of the petitioner sworn on 28-2-2003. It was, inter alia, stated in the said affidavit of the petitioner that 18-2-2003 was fixed for arguments in the said Rent Appeal No. 56 of 2002; and that the petitioner had engaged Shri Vikas Mathur, Advocate as his counsel and the adjournment application had been filed through the clerk of Shri Vikas Mathur; and that as the condition of a near relative of the petitioner had become serious on account of an accident, the petitioner had earlier left for Faizabad to look after the said near relative, and in the circumstances, the petitioner could not reach the Court in time and his Vakalatnama also could not be filed; and that in the circumstances, the said Rent Appeal No. 56 of 2002 was dismissed in default. The said restoration application was registered as Misc. Case No. 220/74 of 2003.;