- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. At the time of arguments no one appeared for the respon dents hence only arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition aris ing out of eviction/release proceedings under Section 21 of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by landlady respondent No. 2 Smt. Ram Kali Devi against him in the form of P. A case No. 84 of 1983. Prescribed Authority/munsif Hawaii, Meerut through ex parte judgment and order dated 3-11-1983, allowed the release application. Application to recall the said order was filed by the petitioner oh 28-11-1983. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 102 of 1983. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 13-1-1984, rejected the said application which order has been challenged through this writ petition. The Property in dispute is a room, which is part of accommodation number 166-J, Circular Road, Meerut Cantt. Petitioner is an advocate and has got his chamber in the accommodation in dispute. Rent is Rs. 26/- per month. In the restoration application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, petitioner admitted service of notice. The release application was filed on 20-9-1983. Notices were issued to the petitioner for filing written statement on 18-10-1983. It appears that due to visibility of moon, Moharram holiday, which was initially scheduled on 19-10-1983, was shifted and 18-10-1983 was declared as holiday on account of Moharram instead of 19-10-1. 983. The case was taken up on 19-10-1983 and it was directed that as defendant had not appeared inspite of sufficient service hence case should proceed ex parte and evidence must be filed within 10 days. The case was again taken up on 28-10-1983 on which date affidavits were filed by the landlady. Thereafter on 1-11-1983, arguments were heard and release application was allowed on 3-11-1983.
(3.) PETITIONER in the restoration ap plication and affidavit filed in support thereof took the case that he was an ad vocate practicing on the sales tax side and it was a practice in the Sales Tax Court that and if on a fixed date holiday was declared then notice of the fresh date was sent to the parties hence he was under the impression that 18-10-1983 the date fixed in the case having been declared holiday, fresh notice would come to him hence he could not appear on 19-10-1983. Holidays of Eid and Moharram are subject to the local visibility of the moon and in case any of these holidays is preponed by a day then the cases fixed on the working day which is sub sequently declared as holiday are taken up on the next day which was initially shown to be the holiday. After personal service, which was admitted it was not at all necessary to issue fresh notice to the petitioner. Within few days of pass ing ex parte decree petitioner appeared and filed restoration application hence his version that he was waiting for fresh notice was rightly disbelieved by the prescribed authority.;