A.N. Verma, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge on 3 -8 -1977 rejecting an application of the Petitioner for setting aside an exparte order passed in appeal. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner is a tenant. The Respondent No. 2 filed an application against the Petitioner under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved the Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. This appeal was decided exparte and was allowed by an order dated 21 -7 -77. The appellate order is on merits. The Petitioner was absent on the date on which the appeal was disposed off. Subsequently, the Petitioner moved an application under Kale 22(b) of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act for rehearing of the appeal or for setting aside of the order passed by the learned District Judge on 21 -7 -1977 disposing off the appeal in the absence of the Petitioner. This application has been rejected by the learned District Judge under the Impugned order dated 3 -8 -1977 on the ground that, inasmuch as, the appeal has been disposed off on merits, the learned District Judge did not lack jurisdiction to consider the application of the Petitioner for setting aside of the exparte order disposing off the appeal. The material fact was that the appeal was disposed off in the absence of the Petitioner and by means of the application, the Petitioner was seeking the recall of that order on the ground that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date fixed for the disposal of the appeal. The application of the Petitioner was clearly maintainable even though the appeal of the Respondent No. 2 may have been disposed off on merits. Rule 22(b) of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act is unambiguous and confers power on the appellate court to rehear the appeal on sufficient cause being shown which has been disposed off in the absence of a party to the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Respondent attempted to argue that the provisions of Rule 22(b) aforesaid are ultra vires, inasmuch as according to him they go beyond the provisions of Section 34 of the aforesaid Act. Under Section 34 Sub -section (1) of the aforesaid Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the matters specified thereunder. Under Clause (g) of that section it has been laid down that the Code of Civil Procedure may be applied for any other matter which may be prescribed. By framing Rule 22(b) court has been given power to recall or set aside orders passed in applications or appeals in the absence of the parties. Rule 22(b) is thus clearly covered by the provisions of Clause (g) of Section 34(1) of the aforesaid Act. The rule can by no stretch of imagination be held to be ultra vires.
(2.) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the learned District Judge dated 3 -8 -1977 is quashed and the learned District Judge is directed to dispose off the application of the Petitioner under Rule 22(b) on merits. The parties will bear their own costs.;