JUDGMENT Anshuman Singh, J. - This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11-2-1987 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) rejecting the application of the tenant for setting aside an ex parte order passed under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. Before the writ petition was admitted Mr. Keshri Nath Tripathi appeared for Respondent No. 2 and he was granted time to tile a counter affidavit. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of parties under the second proviso of Rule (2) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, I consider it necessary to dispose of the writ petition, finally at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner is a tenant of House No. 40, Dondipur, Allahabad. Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before Prescribed Authority for release of the said accommodation. Notice were issued to the petitioner but they were not served on the petitioner personally. A report was submitted by the Process Server that the petitioner refused to accept the notice. On the basis of the service by refusal, an ex parte order was passed against the petitioner on 29-4-1986 allowing the application of the respondent for release. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte order but the Prescribed Authority by the impugned order refused to do the same. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and pursued the impugned order and also the counter and rejoinder affidavits. The fact that there was no personal service on the tenant petitioner has not been disputed by the landlord-respondent and the service has been held to be sufficient on the basis of the refusal. In the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the tenant should be given an opportunity of contesting the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on merits. In a case where eviction of a tenant is involved it is always expedient that the tenant should have full opportunity to oppose the application of the landlord for release. In view of the facts stated above I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 11-2-1987 is liable to be quashed. 5. In a case where eviction of a tenant is involved it is always expedient that the tenant should have full opportunity to oppose the application of the landlord for release. In view of the facts stated above I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 11-2-1987 is liable to be quashed. 5. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 11-2-1987 is quashed and the Prescribed Authority is directed to dispose of the application of the landlord respondent for release on merits within a period of the month from the date of representation of a certified copy of this order.