- (1.) Heard Sri H.S. Jain, learned Counsel for petitioner in the first writ petition and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for petitioner in the second writ petition, and Sri R.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, Prakash Narain Nigam, the landlord in both the writ petitions. Landlord respondent No. 4 filed application for release under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta. Property in dispute is a shop situate on ground floor and rate of rent is Rs. 1260/- per month as mentioned in the release application. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 2006. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow allowed the release application on 6.10.2008. Thereafter, original tenant Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta filed appeal being Rent Appeal No. 43 of 2008. During pendency of appeal Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta died. Petitioner of the second writ petition, Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta his son filed substitution application praying for his substitution at the place of his deceased father as appellant and substitution of his mother and sisters as pro-forma respondents in the appeal. That application was allowed. Thereafter, mother of Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta, i.e., Smt. Pushpa Devi Gupta filed application for transposition as appellant. That application was rejected on 30.3.2013 by A.D.J., T.E.C.P.-I, Lucknow giving rise to the first writ petition. Earlier landlord had filed a writ petition in which a direction was issued for deciding the appeal expeditiously. Thereafter, appeal was dismissed in the absence of appellant on 7.12.2011 even though something was said on merit also. Thereafter, restoration application was filed, which was rejected on 20.12.2011. Thereafter, Writ Petition (Rent Control) No. 7 of 2012 was filed which was disposed of on 18.1.2012. Copy of the said order is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below: Since the matter is old one, it is being remanded back to the opposite party No. 1 to be decided on merit after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Since there was order of the Court to decide the matter expeditiously within two months, therefore, one month's time is further allowed to the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow to decide the matter afresh on merit. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the proceedings of the case. Any adjournment taken by the petitioner would mean that there is avoidance on the part of the petitioner and it will be taken cognizance thereof against the petitioner. If the petitioner does not appear, matter can be dismissed in default.
(2.) Thereafter, appeal was again dismissed in default by District Judge, Lucknow on 16.10.2012 and in the said judgment reference was made to the High Court's order dated 18.1.2012 also. Thereafter, restoration application was filed, which was dismissed in default. Thereafter, application for recall of the said order was filed, which was dismissed on 30.3.2013, copy of which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Through the second writ petition, the above orders including the last order dated 30.3.2013 have been challenged.
(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioner has repeatedly argued that petitioner deserves one opportunity of hearing. The argument is that appeal was transferred to another Court but information was not given. In the order it is mentioned that information was sought to be given to the learned Counsel of the appellant but he was not available. Now execution proceedings have been started.;