ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State as well as Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
2. The petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Etawah, dated 11th March, 1987, whereby the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2nd January, 1987, has been refused to be interfered with on the ground that the deemed vacancy has already been notified, therefore, the order cannot be recalled in exercise of power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, approached the revisional court, who maintained the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Admittedly, no revision lies and remedy of pursuing the revision was misconceived. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in that event this writ petition be treated a writ petition against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that in view of Rule 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which is reproduced below, it is abundantly clear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has power to recall the. order, which was passed ex parte and thus the view taken by the Urban Areas Control of Rent and Eviction Officer that he has no power to recall the ex parte order suffers from manifest error of law :
"22. Powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 [Section 34(1)(g)].--The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or the appellate or revising authority shall, for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under the Act, shall have the same powers as are vested in the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :
(a) the power to dismiss an application, appeal or revision for default and to restore it for sufficient cause ;
(b) the power to proceed ex parte and to set aside, for sufficient cause, an order passed ex parte ;
(c) the power to award costs and special costs to any successful party against an unsuccessful party ;
(d) the power to allow amendment of an application, memorandum of appeal or revision ;
(e) the power to consolidate two or more cases of eviction by the same landlord against different tenants ;
(f) the power referred to in Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to make any order for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the authority concerned ;]"
4. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has substance, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
5. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 11th March, 1987, passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.