R. K. Gulat], J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against two orders one dated 4-2-1988 and the other dated 31-3-1988 passed by 9th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, Respondent No. 3. By the first order, the revision filed by the respondent no. 1 landlady was allowed on merits ex-parte against the petitioner. By the second order the said respondent no. 3 dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking recall of the former order, and restoration of the revision for fresh consideration.
(2.) THE petitioner Krishna Kumar Sharma, an office-bearer of District National Union of India was allotted House No. 6 (new number being 19/16) Bhoor, Bulandshahr on 1st October, 1975, of which Smt. Raj Garg, respondent no. 1 is the landlady and the owner thereof. THE said allotment order was unsuccessfully challenged in revision under section 18 of the Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the respondent no. 1. However, the order passed in revision was set aside by this Court on a writ petition being filed at the instance of respondent no. 1. THE case was remanded to the Revisional Court for fresh consideration. THE revisional court in its turn set aside the allotment order and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority, namely, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the allotment application afresh. During the pendency of remand proceedings, the respondent no. 1 moved an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the disputed house in her favour on the ground that she required the same for her personal needs. The Prescribed Authority however, once again made the allotment in favour of the petitioner. The fresh allotment order was again challenged in revision by the respondent no. 1 in the Court of district Judge, Bulandshahr. On August 20, 1987 the District Judge Bulandshahr transferred the case to the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, i. e. respondent no. 3, who allowed the revision on merits in absence of the petitioner by an order dated 4-2-1988. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for recall and for setting aside the ex-parte order. That application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21st March, 1988. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed. At the admission stage of the writ petition contesting respondent no. 1 has put in appearance and has also filed a Counter Affidavit. With the consent of the parties and in accordance with the Rules of the Court, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(3.) THE reason for proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner as indicated in the order dated 4-2-1988 of the respondent no. 3 was that "the petitioner remained absent in the case inspite of personal and sufficient service.". The petitioner's case in the present petition is and that was also his case before the revisional court in proceedings for setting aside the order passed in revision, that he had no notice of the revision being filed by respondent no. 1 nor any notice was given to him when the case was transferred to the Court of respondent no. 3 nor any notice was given to him by the transferee court at any stage of the proceedings which took place before that Court including about the date when the case was finally heard and disposed of. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the ex-parte decree against him for the first time through the husband of respondent no. 1 i. e. the landlady and immediately, thereafter he took steps for setting aside the ex-parte order.;