JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia challenging the orders dated 7.3.1981, 21.7.1982 and 30.7.1982 (Annexures-4, 6 and 9 to the writ petition).
2. The dispute related to the first floor portion of the premises No. 86/264, Garg Road, Ralpurwa, Kanpur consisting of a small room and an open roof in front thereof. The said accommodation is herein referred to as "the disputed accommodation."
3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed accommodation. By order dated 7.3.1981 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, it was held that there was deemed vacancy in the disputed accommodation. By the same order, the disputed accommodation was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 1. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a review application under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The said application under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was dismissed in default by order dated 21.7.1982 by A.D.M. (C.S.)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
4. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said order dated 21.7.1982 and restoring the review application to its original number. This application is annexed an Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This application was accompanied by an affidavit of one Om Prakash clerk to Sri M. R. Siddhiqui, Advocate sworn on 30th July, 1982. The said affidavit is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It was, inter alia, stated in the said affidavit that the said Om Prakash was clerk to Sri M. R. Siddhiqui, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner before the A.D.M. (C.S.)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, and that the said Om Prakash was personally present in the Court when the case was called out and he Informed the reader that the counsel for the applicant was abroad and as such was unable to proceed with the case.
5. The said application filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 21.7.1982 was rejected by the A.D.M. (C.S.)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur by order dated 30th July, 1982 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
6. This writ petition was admitted on 2.7.1982 and notices were directed to be issued. On 8.8.2001, service on respondent No. 1 was deemed sufficient and the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing. The respondent No. 2 is represented by the learned standing counsel.
7. I have heard Sri S.M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by Sri Dayal that, the affidavit of the clerk to the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) was not controverted. He referred to paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition in this regard. Sri Dayal further submits that order dated 30th July, 1982 is totally a non-speaking and sketchy order.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The application for setting aside the order dated 21.7.1982 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner was supported by an affidavit of the said Om Prakash clerk to the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, who was appearing before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. The said affidavit remained uncontroverted. In the circumstances, it was incumbent on A.D.M. (C.S.)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur to record reasons for not accepting the assertion made in the affidavit (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The order dated 30.7.1982 passed by the A.D.M. {C.S.)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur says that the affidavit has been perused. No reasons have been given for disbelieving the assertions made in the affidavit. Thus, the said order dated 30.7.1982 suffers from manifest error of law and is liable to be quashed.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 30.7.1982 passed by the A.D.M. (C.S.)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) is quashed. A.D.M. (C,S.)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur is directed to consider the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 21.7.1982 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and its accompanying affidavit (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) afresh and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.
10. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.