K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition against the order dated 16-8-1986 passed by the Munsif I, Rampur in Case No 35 of 1984 Krishna Kumar v. Akbar Shah and another. The aforesaid order is contained in Annexure VI attached with the writ petition. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:- "The petitioner was the tenant of a shop in Bazar Sarrafa, Puiana Ganj, Rampur on payment of Rs. 11.25 per month as rent. The opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 in the present writ petition namely Krishna Kumar and Vishnu Saran had moved an application under section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the ejectment of the petitioner. The application moved by the landlord was allowed through the order dated 18-11-1983. The petitioner had riled an appeal against the order dated 18-11-1983 and in appeal the parties entered into a compromise as is evident from Annexure 1-A attached with the writ petition and the appeal was decided in terms of the compromise through the order dated 18-10-1984 Thereafter the landlords moved an application under section 23 of the U. P. Act No 13 of 1972 and in that proceeding they succeeded in ejecting the petitioner from the disputed shop. The petitioner challenged the order of ejectment on the ground that the aforesaid order was passed ex-parte without any notice to the tenant as is evident from Annexure IV attached with the writ petition. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the landlords on various grounds. It was stressed that the petitioner did not comply with the order of the appellate court and that the landlords had taken possession in a proceeding under section 23 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 validly. It was not necessary to serve any notice upon the petitioner in the proceeding under section 23 of the above-mentioned Act. According to the landlords the petitioner had bad intention in not obeying the order of the trial court dated 18-10-1984, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get back possession from the landlords in any manner (See Annexure V attached with the writ petition).
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after examining the claims of the parties dismissed the petitioner's prayer for getting possession over the disputed shop and accepted the objection raised by the landlords as is evident from the impugned order dated 16-8-1985 contained in Annexure VI attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16-8-1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the order of ejectment against the petitioner without any notice to him was bad in law and should have been quashed on this ground alone.;