R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) The present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21, of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for short the Act. and is directed against the order dated 30.1.1997 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.11.1992 releasing the building in question (shop) was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority, the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that late Prabhu Dayal (landlord), filed an application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the shop in dispute, for his personal use and occupation, on the ground of his bona fide and genuine need. The said application was registered as P. A. Case No. 47 of 1990. On the said application, notices were issued to the petitioner, who was in occupation of the said shop as a tenant. On receipt of the notices, petitioner appeared in the Court of Prescribed Authority and also filed his written statement. It may be noted that petitioner claims that Prabhu Dayai filed P. A. case which was subsequently registered as P. A. Case No. 40 of 1990 in the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge. Lucknow. On the other hand, the contesting respondents claim that Case No. 40 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner with a view to obtain favourable ex parte orders against late Prabhu Dayal the predecessor respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and landlord of the building in question. There are allegations and counter-allegations with respect to the filing of the said case against each other, but the said controversy for the purposes of said case was rendered otiose and futile inasmuch as the said case was ultimately dismissed in default and none of the parties applied for its restoration.
(3.) It has been stated that Prabhu Dayal died on 2.11.1990. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the Court on 22.12.1990, but as the contesting respondent did not take steps for substitution of heirs of late Prabhu Dayal, he did not appear and attend the Court thereafter and did not have any knowledge of the proceedings in the case. From the record of the case, it appears that on 30.11.1990 substitution application was filed, on behalf of the contesting respondents and it was allowed ex parte. Thereafter several dates were fixed in the case before the Prescribed Authority. Ultimately vide order dated 20.7.91 passed by the District Judge, the aforesaid case was transferred from the Court of IVth Additional Civil Judge to the Court of Vth Additional Civil Judge. The transferee Court issued notices to the petitioner in the month of September, 1991. Thereafter steps were taken by the contesting respondents for service of notices upon the petitioner by registered post and as the registered cover was not returned unserved/undelivered by the post office. The Prescribed Authority presumed the said notice to have been served vide its order dated 30.1.1992. On the said date following order was passed : "Put up today. Applicant's counsel not present. Registered notice not returned. More than nine months have elapsed. Hence service on opposite parly is presumed. Fix 5.3.93 for written statement." Sd. 30.1.1992.";