S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) On 27th July, 2005 I passed the order that as respondent No. 2 the alleged licensee had been dispossessed about 16 years before hence it was a fit case in which parties shall make all efforts to compromise the matter. Today learned Counsel for respondent stated that his client was not responding and he had no instruction in this case.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) Petitioner claiming to be chief tenant filed application under Section 2-A of U.P. Act No. 13/72 for eviction of respondent No. 2 on the ground that license for a short period had been granted by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 and said license had expired. Application was registered as P.A. Case No. 7/89 Chandra Maseeh v. Budhsen George, on the file of Prescribed Authority, Bareilly. The said application was allowed ex parte on 24th July, 1989. Thereafter application for setting aside the said ex parte order was filed by Respondent No. 2 which was dismissed on the ground that no step for summoning the original file as directed earlier had been taken. Another application to recall the said order was filed which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 25th January, 1990 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not required to take any step for summoning the file. Meanwhile on 13th November, 1989 admittedly possession was taken by the petitioner from respondent No. 2 through process of Court.;