Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) SINCE counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, the matter is being heard and decided finally. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17th April, 2004, passed by prescribed authority in M.P.A. No. 16 of 2003, whereby the application No. 3 -B filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex -parte order dated 3rd September, 2003 was rejected by the prescribed authority.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for release of the accommodation in question in his favour. This application was fixed for hearing on 3rd September, 2003 when the same was rejected in the absence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application No. 3 -B for setting aside the ex -parte order dated 3rd September, 2003. By the order impugned in the present writ petition, the said application 3 -B for setting aside the ex -parte order dated 3rd September, 2003 was rejected by the prescribed authority, thus, this writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent Shri Haider Husain submitted that the order impugned in the present writ petition being an order whereby the application under section 21(1) of the Act has been rejected ex -parte, an appeal lies under section 22 of the Act, therefore this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. For the purposes of present controversy, section 22 of the Act is reproduced below: - - 22. Appeal. - - Any person aggrieved by an order under section 21 or section 24 may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal.
(3.) A bare reading of section 22 of the Act clearly demonstrates that the order dated 17th April, 2004, which is impugned in the present writ petition, of Sri Husain that an appeal ought to have been filed, is not tenable. On merits, Sri Husain submitted that in view of the observation made in the order impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner do not deserve for exercise of discretion in his favour and the application 3 -B has been rightly rejected by the prescribed authority.;