S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Service upon landlord-respondent No. 2 has already been held to be sufficient by order dated 6.7.2005. On one has appeared on his behalf. Heard Learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner.
(2.) The landlord-respondent No. 2 filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant-petitioner in the form of R.C. Case No. 12 of 1987 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Bulandshahr. Release application was allowed exparte on 4.2.1988. Thereafter, petitioner filed restoration application. The ground of restoration was that in the notice given to him 22.1.1988 was the date fixed which was suddenly declared public holiday and thereafter no intimation of any further date was given to him. In fact, the case was taken up on 23.1.1988. This was highly irregular. Fresh notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner. Prescribed Authority through order dated 18.3.1988 allowed the restoration application and set aside the exparte order dated 4.2.1988. Thereafter proceedings on main release application started. In the said proceedings landlord did not intimate that he had filed appeal against restoration order dated 18.3.1988. The appeal which landlord had filed against restoration order dated 18.3.1988 was registered as R.C. Appeal No. 16 of 1988. The said appeal was allowed by the IXth A.D.J. Bulandshahr on 14.9.1988. In the said order it was mentioned that no one appeared on behalf of the tenant. Tenant thereafter filed an application tor review of the order dated 14.9.1988. IXth A.D.J. Bulandshahr through judgement and order dated 26.4.1990 rejected the review application. This Writ petition is directed against the aforesaid orders dated 14.9.1988-and 26.4.1990
(3.) In my opinion, the order dated 14.9.1988 is utterly erroneous in law. When date fixed in the summons was declared to be public holiday, it would have been more appropriate for the Court to issue fresh summons. In any case, that could be a valid around for restoration and the Prescribed Authority rightly allowed the restoration application on that ground. Moreover, in the matter of restoration the Court should be some what lenient. Prescribed Authority had exercised discretion vested in him to restore the main case. There was no undue delay in filing the restoration application. Appellate Court should not have interfered in the said discretion. In any case, the tenant had made out a case for restoration.;