Ishtiyaq Ahmad vs District Judge,Jhansi & Ors.

Yatindra Singh, J.—Petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) for release of the premises in dispute. Respondent No. 3 (the contesting respondent) was tenant of the same. Notice of this application was served upon the contesting respondent by publication and even he did not appear. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was allowed on 20th January, 1981 and possession was handed over to the landlord on 5th May, 1981. The contesting respondent filed an application to recall this order. This was allowed on 1081981. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed on 291982, hence the present writ petition.

I have heard Sri Radhey Shyam, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Agarwal, Counsel for the contesting respondent. This Court while entertaining this writ petition stayed the order dated 1081981 and as such neither further proceedings have taken in the case nor premises in dispute has been given back to the contesting respondent. The application of the contesting respondent to vacate this order was also rejected and the stay order was confirmed subsequently. There is no dispute that no revision lies against the order dated 1081981. So far as the order dated 2011981 is concerned this order is a nonspeaking order. So far as merit of recall application is concerned, it was allowed without recording any finding and as such order dated 10 11981 is illegal and it is quashed. The parties may appear before the prescribed authority on 3rd September, 2001 and on that date the application filed by the contesting respondent to recall the order dated 2011981 may again be decided in accordance with law.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.