Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chowdhry Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the prescribed authority allowing the release application of the respondent No. 1/landlord, now represented by his heirs and legal representatives, the appellate judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 dismissing the appeal arising there from and the order dated 22.1.2008 rejecting the application of the petitioners for recalling the appellate judgment and order. In brief, the facts are that the respondent No. 1/landlord applied for releasing the house in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was allowed vide judgment and order dated 10.5.2006. The petitioners filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act and the same was dismissed on 11.5.2007. Petitioners thereafter applied for recall of the above judgment and order on the ground that as none of their counsel were present the appeal could not have been decided on merit and at best should have been dismissed in default. The application was rejected on 22.1.2008.
(3.) AT the very outset it would be important to point out that in view of Section 34 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act, the prescribed authority and the appellate authority have the same powers as are vested in the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of dismissal of an application, appeal or revision for default and to restore them for sufficient cause.;