Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed an affidavit stating therein that rent is regularly being deposited. In this case notices were issued to the land lords respondents but they have not appeared. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that landlords respondent nos. 3 and 4 are residing abroad, some where in Europe. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month is being deposited in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South Lucknow. Copies of the tenders have been annexed alongwith the application and the supplementary affidavit filed today directly in the Court. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary affidavit that Rs. 300/- per month is also being paid directly to the land lords respondents as rent from January 2003 onward on the basis of some subsequent oral agreement. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this amount of Rs. 300/- is being paid without any receipt. No opinion is being expressed by the court regarding this assertion as it is not at all relevant for deciding the writ petition. 2. Landlords respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed release application against the petitioner under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bonafide need before the Prescribed Authority/ IVth Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow in the form of P.A. Case No. 23 of 1995 Gill Perera and others vs. S.K.Verma. The application was allowed exparte on 06.03.1999 by Prescribed Authority/ IVth Additional Civil Judge Senior division, Lucknow. Thereafter restoration application was filed which was registered as P.A. Case No. 7-C of 1999. Due to change of jurisdiction restoration application came up before J.S.C.C./ Prescribed Authority, Lucknow. The application was rejected on 11.08.2000. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. 3. The impugned order was passed only on the report of process server that after transfer of the case from one court to another petitioner's advocate refused to accept the notice and petitioner closed the door when process server went there to serve him with the notice. The affidavit which was filed by the tenant petitioner in support of restoration application was rejected and held to be invalid for want of proper verification. Such highly technical approach is not warranted in restoration matters. The affidavit which was filed by the tenant petitioner in support of restoration application was rejected and held to be invalid for want of proper verification. Such highly technical approach is not warranted in restoration matters. Moreover no one is appearing for landlords respondents. May be the statement given by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of information received from the petitioner that respondents are permanently settled abroad is correct. However, this is not the basis of this order. 4. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.08.2000 is set aside. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 06.03.1999 is also set aside. Release application is restored on the file of prescribed authority. 5. It is further directed that since November 2013 onward petitioner shall pay rent to the landlords respondents by depositing the same before the prescribed authority or Civil Judge (Junior Division) South Lucknow at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month by 7th of each succeeding months. ___________________