JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. It appears that the District Supply Officer/ Delegated Authority Meerut in case no. 15/04 has passed release order on 16.5.06. The petitioners claiming themselves to be tenant in the aforesaid premises have filed an application under section 16 (5) read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972 for recall of the order dated 16.5.06 on 23.5.06. It is contended that the counsel for the petitioners has been appearing before the authority concerned but on one date i.e. 6.9.07 counsel did not appear, however, one of the petitioner was present but the petitioners' application was rejected by the delegated authority. 3. For recall of the said order , the petitioners have filed another application and that application was also rejected on 25.9.07 4. Aggrieved by the above order,a Revision has been filed by the petitioner. That too was dismissed on 22.12.09. Sri Rahul Sahai learned counsel for the petitioners while asailing the impugned orders, submitted before the Court that orders dated 6.9.07 and 25.9.07 are cryptic one as no reason has been assigned while rejecting petitioner's application. In his submissions, the Revisional Court has also taken a very technical view of the matter and dismissed Revision. Sri Sahai has further submitted that the matter ought to be heard on merit as the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity of hearing due to which serious prejudice is going to cause. . 5. I have gone through the impugned orders dated 6.9.07 and 25.9.07, from perusal of the same it is apparent that no reason whatsoever has been recorded in rejecting the same. However, the Revisional court has recorded some reason but prima facie it appears to me that the view taken by Revisional court is technical one as the petitioner's main grievance was against the exparte Release order. The matter requires consideration. 6. Issue notice through registered post returnable at an early date. In addition, normal mode of service of notice, learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to serve the respondents outside the court for which the office shall supply necessary Dasti notice to the petitioner after taking steps by petitioner's counsel. 7. List this case in the week commencing 22nd February 2010. 8. In addition, normal mode of service of notice, learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to serve the respondents outside the court for which the office shall supply necessary Dasti notice to the petitioner after taking steps by petitioner's counsel. 7. List this case in the week commencing 22nd February 2010. 8. As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties it is provided that status quo as on the date with regard to the nature and possession over the disputed premises shall be maintained till the next date of listing. 9. Copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours.