ORDER Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner is the landlord of the shop in question and had filed an application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop. It was alleged that the original tenant had died in the year 1979 and after his death, the sons of the original tenant being respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were neither living in Chandausi nor were carrying on any business from the shop in question and that the said shop had been sublet to another person. It was also alleged that the shop in question was required for the petitioner’s son, who was unemployed. Notices were sent to the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of the Court. The process server submitted a report that the respondent No. 3, mother of the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 refused to accept the notice and accordingly the notice was served upon the respondents by affixation. Thereafter, the prescribed authority further directed the petitioner to publish the notice in the newspaper, which was subsequently published. Inspite of the publication of the notice in the newspaper and affixation of the notices, the respondents did not appear before the prescribed authority. Accordingly, the case proceeded ex parte and the prescribed authority by order dated 7.2.1984 allowed the application and released the shop in favour of the petitioner. 2. On the basis of the order of the prescribed authority, the petitioner was given physical possession of the shop w.e.f. 27.5.1984. After possession of the premises was handed over to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for recalling the ex parte order. The prescribed authority vide order dated 20.2.1990 allowed the application of the respondents and recalled its order dated 7.2.1984. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority dated 20.2.1990, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed by order dated 3.7.1990 on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. 4. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri B. Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, Sri Rajesh Tandon was earlier appearing as the counsel. 4. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri B. Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, Sri Rajesh Tandon was earlier appearing as the counsel. Upon his elevation to the Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court, this Court vide order dated 7.2.2003 directed the office to issue notice to the respondents to enable them to engage another counsel. Notices were sent by the registry and by order dated 1.4.2004, the notices were deemed to have been served upon the respondents. Inspite of service the respondents have not appeared either in person or through their counsel. 6. Normally this Court would not have interfered against an order setting aside the ex parte order. However, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the shop in question for the last 20 years and the respondents are not appearing before this Court, it is clear that the respondents being out of possession are no longer interested in pursuing the matter. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in directing the prescribed authority to re-consider the application of the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act on merits. 7. In the present case, I find that under Rule 28 of the Rules, the notice was served upon the respondent No. 2 by refusal and upon, the remaining respondents by affixation. The prescribed authority by way of abundant precaution also directed that the notices be published in the newspaper. Thus, the respondents were duly served. The prescribed authority recalled the ex parte order on the ground that there was no provision under Rue 28 of the Rules to serve the notice by publication and, therefore, held that the process adopted for the service on the respondents was irregular and not in accordance with Rule 28 of the Rules. 8. In my view, the reason adopted by the prescribed authority was wholly erroneous. The notice was duly served upon the respondent No. 2 by refusal and upon the remaining respondents by affixation of the notice and, therefore, Rule 28 of the Rules was duly complied with. The publication of the notice was done by way of abundant precaution and was in addition to the mode of service as prescribed under Rule 28 of the Rules. The publication of the notice was done by way of abundant precaution and was in addition to the mode of service as prescribed under Rule 28 of the Rules. Therefore, the publication of the notice in a newspaper cannot be termed as irregular. 9. Thus, the order of the prescribed authority dated 20.2.1990 and the appellate order dated 3.7.1990 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.