Sher Singh (Deceased) vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

In this case, proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1972 was initiated against the petitioner by issuing notice under Section 4 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority passed eviction order against the petitioner on 07.05.1987. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act. The said appeal was decided against the petitioner on 12.12.1988. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application for setting aside the judgment dated 12.12.1988 with the contention that the appeal was decided ex-parte against him as his counsel had gone to Allahabad on the said date. Learned Special Judge/ Additional District Judge, Nainital rejected the said application vide order dated 16.05.1989, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

I have gone through the order passed by learned Appellate Court, learned Appellate Court has given valid reasons for rejecting petitioner's application. Learned Appellate Court has observed that petitioner was present in Court on the previous date i.e. 02.11.1988; therefore, he cannot contend that he had no knowledge about the next date fixed i.e. 12.12.1988. Learned Appellate Court has further observed that if petitioner's counsel was not available on 12.12.1988, then appellant should have appeared before Court on the said date. It has further been observed that there is no evidence on record, which shows that petitioner's counsel had gone to Allahabad on 12.12.1988 and further that no affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that his counsel had gone to Allahabad on the date of hearing. A bald statement made in the application that petitioner's counsel had gone out on the date of hearing unsupported by affidavit is not sufficient for setting aside the judgment.

This Court concurs with the reason assigned by learned Appellate Court for rejecting petitioner's application.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.