JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. First writ petition by three persons is directed against order dated 15.7.2002 passed by R.C. and E.O./City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 15 of 2002 under Section 16 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Manoj Kumar Singh v. Amar Singh. The said order is only four line order which says that inspite of notice occupier has not deliberately appeared therefore, on the application of landlady, Urmila Devi agarwal, vacancy is declared ex parts. Let the vacancy be published and the file be placed on '2.8.2002'.
2. Even if no one appears vacancy cannot be declared without recording finding existence of facts, which give rise to vacancy. From the impugned order no one can gather as to under which clause of Section 12 vacancies has been declared.
3. Accordingly, after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for landlady respondent No. 1, I allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated 15.7.2002 and direct R.C. and E.O, to decide the question of vacancy after hearing parties concerned within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If petitioners seek any adjournment it must be granted on payment of heavy cost. Whatever evidence, petitioners want to file they must file within two weeks from today.
4. As far as second writ petition is concerned, it has been filed by Dildar Singh who is real nephew of petitioners of first writ petition. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, father of the three petitioners of first writ petition and grandfather of petitioner of the second writ petition was tenant in the accommodation in dispute hence they all are joint tenants.
5. Dildar Singh had filed application for recalling of the order dated 15.7.2002 which was rejected on 20.1.2004 which is impugned in the second writ petition.
6. As in the first writ petition the said order dated 15.7.2002 has been set aside hence second writ petition also stands allowed with the same liberty and liabilities as has been granted to and fastened upon petitioners of first writ petition.
7. Petitioners of both the writ petitions are jointly directed to pay rent to landlady respondent No. 1 Smt. Urmila Devi Agrawal at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from August, 2004 by 7th of each succeeding month. The rent may either be paid through moneyorder after deducting moneyorder charges or be deposited before B.C. and E.O. where the case is pending for immediate to payment to landlady. In case of default this order shall stand automatically vacated and writ petitions shall stand dismissed.