JUDGMENT Anshuman Singh, J. - When the petition was being argued for admission, Sri Dinesh Kakkar filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2. He was granted time for filing the counter affidavit. In spite of the time granted for filing counter-affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed but he has made oral submissions. 2. The petitioner is tenant of house as well as a shop. Proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 were initiated against him before the Prescribed Authority, Etawah. It appears that the registered notices were sent to the petitioner which were received back unserved. Thereafter, was alleged that the notices were affixed an on the basis of the same, the service was held to be sufficient and an ex parte order was passed on 30th July, 1984. Though, the order under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is alleged to have been passed on 30th July, 1984, yet the landlord-respondent did not get the said order executed till the year 1987. It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner came to know that he was going to be evicted on the basis of the order obtained in 1984, he filed an application before the Prescribed, Authority for setting aside the ex parte order. The said application has been rejected on the ground that the application was barred by time and the explanations offered by the petitioner, were considered to be insufficient. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The roost important feature of the present case is that though the Opposite Party No. 2 obtained an ex parte order under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act as for back as on 30th July, 1984, the same was not executed till the year 1987. It was also not disputed that notice were not served personally on the petitioner. In my opinion, in a proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act where the eviction of a tenant is involved, the tenant must be afforded full opportunity of resisting the claim of the landlord #for the release of the accommodation. In view of the said fact. I am of the opinion that the tenant-petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of full hearing of the application of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of merits. 5. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. In view of the said fact. I am of the opinion that the tenant-petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of full hearing of the application of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of merits. 5. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 30-7-1984 and 14-7-1987 are quashed and the Prescribed Authority is directed to disposed of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on merits within a period of two months from the date of the filing of the certified copy of the order of this Court.