Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25th February, 1993 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he recalled the order dated 26th February, 1992 by which he had summoned one Lal Chand to appear in a case for the purpose of examination. Respondent No. 2 filed application for release of Premises No. 124/426, G -Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur purported to be under Section 21(1 -A) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') stating that he retired from service from Cantonment Board, Kanpur on 1 -12 -19(sic)2 and in pursuance thereof he had to vacate the Government quarter on 1 -12 -19(sic)7 and since then he has been residing in Mouse No. 124/426, G -Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur. It was asserted that he had no alternative accommodation to live with his family. The petitioner was a tenant of ground floor portion of House No. 124/426, G -Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and the same should be released in his favour.
(2.) THE petitioner contested the said application. He filed objection stating that the petitioner has not vacated the Government accommodation and he was residing in the same accommodation as the said accommodation has been allotted to his son, Gyan Prakash, who is also employed in the same office. It was further asserted that various tenants were occupying different portions of House No. 124/426, G -Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and they vacated the same and respondent No. 2 again let out them at higher rent which clearly indicates that he had no bona fide need. One Lal Chand, who was a tenant of a portion of House No. 124/426, G -Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur, vacated the accommodation in the year 1985 which was under his tenancy but respondent No. 2 let out the same to one Ajai Kumar Nigam and that clearly establishes that the need of respondent No. 2 was not genuine and bona fide. During the pendency of the case the petitioner filed an application on 1st November, 1991 to summon Lal Chand to prove that he had vacated the accommodation which was under his tenancy and thereafter the same accommodation was let out to Ajai Kumar Nigam by the respondent. The respondent filed objection stating that Lal Chand never delivered possession to him but he illegally sublet it to Ajai Kumar Nigam. The petitioner filed another application to issue non -bailable warrant to summon Lal Chand. The respondent filed application on 22nd February, 1992 giving consent that Lal Chand be summoned by non -bailable warrant. On the application of the parties the Prescribed Authority passed the following order: Heard learned counsel for both the parties. The applications and Paper No. 133 is allowed. Opposite Party will take steps in two days. Put up on 12 -3 -1992 for appearance and order.
(3.) THE notices were issued to Lal Chand but the same returned unserved. The matter remained pending for service of notice on Lal Chand but he was never served. After about nine months on 25th November, 1992 the respondent filed an application to recall the order dated 26th February, 1992 whereby the court had directed to summon Lal Chand. It was stated that the petitioner is delaying proceedings after obtaining order of summoning Lal Chand. The petitioner filed objection and stated that he had taken steps for service and he has not been served and there was no justification for recalling the order dated 26th February, 1992. Respondent No. 1 after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the circumstances and material on record, recalled the order dated 26th February, 1992 by order dated 25th February, 1993. He found that Lal Chand was admittedly not residing on the address as given by the petitioner and no other address was supplied. There was sufficient justification to recall the order dated 26th February, 1992. The petitioner has challenged this order.;