JUDGMENT : A.N. Varma, J. This is landlady's petition which is directed against an order dated 23-10-1978 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Agra dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner for setting aside an order passed by the said court disposing of the Petitioner's appeal u/s 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the absence of the Petitioner but on merits. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposing of this petition are these: The Petitioner filed an application u/s 21 of the aforesaid Act for the release of the accommodation of which the Respondent No. 4 is the tenant and the Petitioner, its landlady. This application was contested by the tenant and was eventually dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting his application. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 23rd July 1977. For one reason or another, it was adjourned on a few dates. Eventually, the appeal was taken up for hearing on 1st April 1978. The Respondent and his counsel were present on this date. However, neither the landlord, nor his counsel was present. The learned District Judge took up the appeal and dismissed it on merits by an order dated 3-4-1978. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application purporting to be u/s 151 read with Rule 22 (f) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. By means of this application, it was prayed that the order dated 3-4-1978 dismissing the Petitioner's appeal be set aside and the appeal be restored to its original number and it be re-heard. This application has been rejected by the learned IV Additional District Judge by an order which is the subject of challenge in this petition. The learned District Judge has dismissed the Petitioner's application on the short ground that it was not maintainable, inasmuch as, he had disposed of the appeal on merits. In the view of the learned District Judge, the order passed by him disposing of the appeal on merits could not be characterised as an ex-parte order. The learned District Judge did not go into the question of sufficiency of the cause alleged by the Petitioner for absence of himself or his counsel on the date on which the appeal was taken up for hearing and disposed of. 3. The learned District Judge did not go into the question of sufficiency of the cause alleged by the Petitioner for absence of himself or his counsel on the date on which the appeal was taken up for hearing and disposed of. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the learned District Judge has fallen into a manifest error of law in rejecting the Petitioner's application as not maintainable. Learned Counsel submitted that Clause (b) of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act contained a specific provision investing the court with the power to set aside an order passed ex-parte. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand urged that the said rule could not no (sic) application, inasmuch as, the order could be deemed to be an ex-parte order only if the Appellant was present and the Respondent was absent. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in him by law in rejecting the Petitioner's application as not maintainable without going into the question whether there was sufficient cause for the absence of the Petitioner or his counsel on the date fixed for hearing of the appeal. The mere fact that the learned District Judge disposed of the appeal on the date fixed on merits in the absence of the Appellant or his counsel would not make the said order any the less an ex-parte order. The order was an ex-parte order because it was passed in the absence of the Appellant, though on merits. The view taken by the courts below, therefore, that he had no power to consider the Petitioner's application on merits is obviously wrong. I do not agree with counsel for the Respondent that the order in question was not an ex-parte order because it was passed not in the absence of the Respondent but in the absence of the Appellant. No such conclusion can be derived from the language of Rule 22 (b) which is clear and unambiguous. It says the appellate court shall have to set aside an ex-parte order on sufficient cause being shown. The learned District Judge, therefore, did have power to consider the Petitioner's application on merits. 5. In view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. It says the appellate court shall have to set aside an ex-parte order on sufficient cause being shown. The learned District Judge, therefore, did have power to consider the Petitioner's application on merits. 5. In view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge dated 23-10-1978 is quashed. The case is remanded to the Respondent No. 1 for considering the Petitioner's application on merits having regard to the observations made in the judgment. The parties will bear their own costs.