- (1.) R. H. Zaldi, J. Present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 29-A (5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short the Act.
(2.) FOR disposal of the present petition it is not necessary to state the facts of the case in detail. It would be suffice to state that earlier the matter came up to this Court and was ultimately sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for his decision afresh on merits. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, permitted the parties to file written arguments fixing 25. 7. 1987 for orders. On 25-7-1987 when the petitioner went to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Nakur, Saharanpur to submit the written arguments he found that the case was already decided against him. He, therefore, made the application for setting-aside ex parte order dated 25-7-1987 on the same date, but no orders were passed on the said application, he therefore, filed another application on 14. 8. 1987 with the same prayer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 16-10-1987 dismissed the aforesaid applications as not maintainable, holding that the ex-parte order dated 25-7-1987 was passed on merits.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the said order and his learned counsel submitted that the order although was passed on merits but the same was ex-parte order and was liable to be set aside and the case should have been restored to its original number. THE view taken by respondent No. 1 to the contrary is erroneous and illegal. Sri L. P. Naithani, Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner had full knowledge about the date fixed in the case for orders. He was supposed to file written argument and in compliance of the order on 25-7-1987, which were not submitted. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, therefore, had no option except to decide the application on merits. The said order according to him was not liable to set-aside on the application filed by the petitioner.;