JUDGMENT O.P. Mehrotra, J. - Petitioner, Vijai Bahadur Singh, who is tenant of house No, 2139 Dempior Nagar, Mathura has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 6-2-1979 (Annexure 1') passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the landlord's application under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, exparte and also for quashing the order dated 10-11-1979 (Annexure 5) dismissing the petitioner's. application made under rule 32 for setting aside the exparte order. 2. There is no dispute that respondent No. 2 is landlord and the petitioner tenant of the premises in question. The petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was posted at Mathura but later on transferred to Agra and subsequently to Banda. The landlord filed an application under section 21 of Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the premises on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for his own use as well as for the growing needs of his family. Notice of the application was sent to the tenant but that she not personally served on him. The petitioner was posted in district Banda at that time but some of his family members were residing in the premises in question. However, the notice dated 6-3-1978 was purported to have been served on Vikran Singh, son of the petitioner, as the notice contained an endorsement that the petitioner was residing at Banda. It appears that the service of the notice dated 6-3-1975 was not treated to be sufficient and thereafter another notice dated 8-5-1978 was again issued to the petitioner. That notice was reported to have been received by Sri Ravindra Bahadur Singh, another son of the petitioner. On 17-7-1978 one N.N. Chatterji, Advocate, filed an application on behalf of the tenant praying for time. Time was allowed but on the next day when the case was taken up no one appeared for the tenant, and the case proceeded exparte and ultimately on 6-2-1979 a ex-parte order allowing the application under section 21 was passed. 3. The petitioner filed an application for restoration under Rule 32 alleging that no notice was ever served either on him or any of his sons nor he or his sons had ever engaged H.N. Chatterji, Advocate, to file any application in the case. 3. The petitioner filed an application for restoration under Rule 32 alleging that no notice was ever served either on him or any of his sons nor he or his sons had ever engaged H.N. Chatterji, Advocate, to file any application in the case. According to him the landlord himself manipulated and set up Chatterji to move an application on his behalf without any instructions from him. The petitioner alleged that he had absolutely no knowledge of this case and what for the first time on 5-7-1979 be came to know from the landlord himself that he had filed an application under section 21 and obtained an ex-parte order of release in his favour. Thereupon he got the record inspected and filed a restoration application on 7-7-1979. 4. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the landlord's contention that H.N. Chatterji was ever engaged by the petitioner to move any application. in the case, and he further held that merely because an application was moved by Chatterji on 17-7-1978, does not prove that the tenant had knowledge of the case. H,: further held that neither the tenant nor any of his sons ever visited Chatterji to instruct him to move any application in the case. The Prescribed Authority, however, held that the notice dated 8-5-1978 sent by registered matter No. 4240 had been received by Ravindra Bahadur Singh petitioner's son on 9-5-1978 and as he was a member of petitioner's family, there was sufficient service of notice on the petitioner. On these findings the Prescribed Authority considered that the petitioner had full knowledge of the case and as the restoration application was moved after five months of the passing of the ex-parte order, the same was not maintainable. Accordingly he rejected the restoration application. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging both the orders of the prescribed Authority. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully examined the record of the case we are fully satisfied that the notice of the proceedings under section 21 was never received by the petitioner or his sons and that the petitioner had no knowledge of the case till 5-7-1979. It is correct that the petitioner did not filed any affidavit sworn by his son, Ravindra Bahadur Singh, before the Prescribed Authority, to deny that the notice dated 8-5-1978 was received by him. It is correct that the petitioner did not filed any affidavit sworn by his son, Ravindra Bahadur Singh, before the Prescribed Authority, to deny that the notice dated 8-5-1978 was received by him. However, the petitioner had 'himself sworn an affidavit that his son, Ravindra Bahadur Singh had never received any such notice. Ravindra Bahadur Singh has filed his own affidavit asserting that the notice dated 8-5-1978 was never received by him. There are attending circumstances which go to show that the landlord was making efforts so that the tenant or his son may not have any knowledge of the case and he may obtain an ex-parte order in his favor. The landlord had full knowledge that the petitioner had been transferred to Banda; an endorsement to that effect had already been made by the tenant's son Vikram Singh on an earlier notice issued for 24-4-1978. In the ordinary course it was the duty of the landlord to have sent notice at the tenant's Banda, address. Instead of doing that, he again sent a notice at Mathura address. There is no tangible material on the basis of which is could be said that the delivery-slip was signed by petitioner's son Ravindra Bahadur Singh. The landlord's intention is further evident from the fact that he got an application moved on behalf of the tenant through H.N. Chatterji, who was never engaged either by the tenant or by any of his sons. If H N. Chatterji did not move the application at the instance of the tenant or his sons, it is evident that he must have done so at the instance of the landlord. It is inconceivable that the tenant would engage a counsel simply to take time and would then permit the case to be decided ex-parte against him. Tenants do sometimes fail to appear before the court and below eviction cases to be decided ex-parte against them and thereby take time and protract litigation and subsequently appear before the court and supply for setting aside ex-parte orders. However, if the petitioner had any such intention, there was no reason why he should have engaged H.N. Chatterji to file application for taking time and thereafter to get the case go ex-parte against him. However, if the petitioner had any such intention, there was no reason why he should have engaged H.N. Chatterji to file application for taking time and thereafter to get the case go ex-parte against him. The tenant in this case is a Deputy Superintendent of Police and we are not prepared to believe that he engaged H.N. Chatterji simply to create evidence that he had knowledge of the case. Evidently Chatterji moved the application for adjournment at the instance of, the landlord. 6. There is another important factor which clearly shows that the landlord was deliberately making efforts so that the tenant may not have any knowledge of the case till his application became berried by limitation. That is why although the ex-parte order had been passed on 6-2-1979, he did not take any steps for executing the order for a period of five months, and in the meanwhile he continued accepting rent from the tenant. It is not disputed that the landlord accepted rent upto June 1979. Evidently the tenant had no cause for apprehension nor he could suspect any foul play. It was in July 1979 that the landlord informed the tenant about the ex-parte order passed in his favor; thereafter the petitioner at once filed an application for restoration. 7. In the circumstances narrated above, we are not prepared to accept the landlord's contention that the notice of application under section 21 had been served on the petitioner's son or that the petitioner had knowledge of the case. On the other hand we are inclined to believe the petitioner that he came to know of proceedings for the first time on 5-7-1979. The restoration application was, therefore, within time and should have been allowed. The learned Prescribed Authority was not at all justified in rejecting the same. 8. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition, set aside the ex-parte order dated 6-2-1979 as well as the subsequent order dated 10-11-1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the restoration application. The restoration application is allowed and application under section 21 of Act 13 of 1972 is restored. The Prescribed Authority is directed to hear and decide the landlord's application in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.