JUDGMENT : T.S. Misra, J. The landlord-opposite-party No. 2 had filed an application u/s 21(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) for seeking eviction of the present Petitioner from the accommodation in question and for its release in his favour. Notice was ordered to be issued to the present Petitioner-tenant. It seems that personal service of the notice could not be effected on him, hence it was ordered that the notice be served by publication in newspaper. Consequently, a publication of the notice was made in a local weekly paper called “Vichar Bharati”. As the present Petitioner did not appear before the Prescribed Authority on the date mentioned in the notice published in the newspaper the Prescribed Authority passed an ex-parte order on 1-8-1978. The landlord then put that order in execution and when the police reached the spot to execute the order the present Petitioner came to know of the order for the first time. He then moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. The Prescribed Authority allowed that application and set aside the ex-parte order dated 1-8-1978 vide his order dated 14-2-1979. The landlord then filed an appeal against the said order of the Prescribed Authority in the court of the District Judge, Gonda. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 14-2-1979. The tenant-Petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order of the learned District Judge. 2. For the Petitioner it was urged at the outset that as no appeal lies u/s 22 of the Act against the order allowing an application setting aside the ex-parte order the appeal filed by the landlord-opposite party was incompetent, It was also argued that even on merits the order of the learned District Judge is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as it suffers form a manifest error of law. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Counsel for the opposite-party landlord. In my view there is force in both the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. 4. As indicated hereinabove an ex parte order was passed against the present Petitioner-tenant on 1-8-1978 directing his eviction from the accommodation in question. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Counsel for the opposite-party landlord. In my view there is force in both the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. 4. As indicated hereinabove an ex parte order was passed against the present Petitioner-tenant on 1-8-1978 directing his eviction from the accommodation in question. When the Petitioner came to know of the order on or about 21-12-1978 he moved an application to set aside the ex parte order. Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act confers powers on the Prescribed Authority as are vested in the Civil Court under the CPC , 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the matters enumerated in the said Rule. Rule 32 says that the Prescribed Authority may on sufficient cause being shown set aside an ex parte order passed u/s 21 of the Act. In the case in hand the Prescribed Authority in exercise of this power set aside the ex parte order dated 1-8-1978 by his order dated 14-2-1979. He was satisfied that the Petitioner was not served with the notice and had no knowledge and even otherwise had not acquired knowledge of the proceedings u/s 21 of the Act at any time before the ex parte order was put in execution and the landlord had gone to the spot with the police force to evict him from the accommodation in question. This order was obviously passed under Rule 32 of the Rules framed under the Act. There is no provision in the Act which entitles an aggrieved person to file an appeal from the said order. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the landlord on Section 22 of the Act, but in my view Section 22 does not apply. It reads as follows:- Any person aggrieved by an order u/s 21 or Section 24 may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects the provision of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal.' The order dated 14-2-1979 was not passed by the Prescribed Authority u/s 21 of the Act. Admittedly it was also not passed u/s 24 of the Act. That being so Section 22 of the Act was not attracted and the appeal was not competent. Admittedly it was also not passed u/s 24 of the Act. That being so Section 22 of the Act was not attracted and the appeal was not competent. The order passed by the learned District Judge was, therefore, without jurisdiction. 5. Even on merits the order of the learned District Judge is not sustainable. It was not disputed that the service of the notice was not effected personally on the tenant-Petitioner. The notice was, however, got published in a local newspaper. This substituted service may have been the service of notice for the purposes of hearing of the case but it is quite plain from Article 123 of the Indian Limitation Act that for the purpose of that Article substituted service under Rule 20 of Order V. of the CPC shall not be deemed to be due service, hence the application to set aside a decree passed ex parte may be moved within 30 days from the date the applicant acquires knowledge of the decree. In the case in hand the Petitioner acquired knowledge of the ex parte order when the landlord went to the spot with the police force to evict the Petitioner from the accommodation in question The application was moved within time. There was nothing on the record to show that the Petitioner had acquired knowledge on any date prior to the said date and that he was delaying the proceedings of the case. The order of the learned District Judge must therefore, be quashed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 18-12-79 passed by the District Judge, Gonda, is quashed and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 14-2-1979 is maintained.