POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Agra. By virtue of the order dated 22.11.1985 the application of the opposite party for release of the disputed accommodation under section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was allowed ex parte and the order was passed by the Munsif, Agra for eviction of the tenant from the disputed shop bearing Municipal No. 26/227 Balka Basti Gokulpura, Agra. An application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. was preferred for setting aside the ex parte order in Case No. 9 of 1980 on the ground that no notice was served and service of notice does not substantiate either in the impugned order releasing the disputed shop nor anywhere whatsoever. The prescribed author­ity rejected the application by means of order dated 27.10.1980. Firstly the order of eviction dated 27.10.1980 is a cryptic order without giving the facts of the release application, the mode of service or even record­ing a finding on the question of 'bona fide need' and 'comparative hardship'. Assuming that ex parte judgment was passed in favour of the landlord, still the landlord was duty bound to establish its case that he requires the accommoda­tion in question and he has bona fide need and also he will suffer greater hard­ship in the event of refusal of release. Besides, the service on the tenant was sufficient which was altogether missing in the order of release. The applica­tion under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. has also been rejected in a very cursory manner. The postman has admitted in his cross examination that no one resides at the address by name of Madan lal and, therefore, he was not able to tell that in March, 1980 whether he served the notice to the petitioner and he has refused the same. In the circumstances, it is evident that he had no notice and, therefore, he was not able to appear in the Court. He could know about ex parte order only at a later date. In the circumstances, the ex parte order is manifestly erroneous and against all settled legal norms. It does not meet the essential requirement of law. The order rejecting the application for recalling the ex parte order is also patently illegal.
(3.) IN the circumstances, I quash the order dated 22.11.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Agra. The matter is remanded to the prescribed authority to decide the release application finally within four months after the appearance is filed by both the parties. The parties shall ensure that the appearances are filed before the prescribed authority within three weeks from today and the prescribed authority shall make every endeavour to decide the release application within four months without granting undue adjournment to either parties unless and until compelling circumstances arise to do so and that too after recording reasons in writing.;