JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri V.K.Mishra along with Sri Shahabuddin,learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 15.11.2014 and 28.11.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Small Cause Judge, 1st, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 19/23/11 . 3. Vide order dated 15.11.2014, the petitioner's adjournment application filed in Misc. Case No. 10/74/13 has been rejected. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 28.11.2014, writ of execution has been issued by the prescribed authority. 4. This case has a very chequered history. In brief, the respondent, herein, has filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Urban Buildings, (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the accommodation in dispute. In the aforesaid case, on 17.7.2010, an order was passed to proceed exparte against the petitioner and thereafter the release application was allowed on 23.5.2011 exparte. Seeking recall of this order, an application was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure ( in short 'C.P.C.'), which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 03/74/12. This application was dismissed in default on 23.1.2013. Seeking recall of this order, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 4 of C.P.C. on 18.2.2013, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 5/74/13. The aforesaid application was rejected on 23.4.2013 holding it to be not maintainable. Thereafter again an application was filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. on 27.4.2013 by the petitioner, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 10/74/13. In this case, number of adjournments were sought and the same were allowed on payment of the cost. Lastly, another adjournment was sought by the petitioner on 15.11.2014 and that application was rejected on the ground that on earlier occasions too, adjournments have been sought and the applicant is deliberately avoiding in participation of the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the applicant-petitioner was present through out but the adjournment was sought because of non-availability of the counsel. He has brought on record the application dated 15.11.2014 in which it is stated that the counsel has gone in another court situated at Maati, therefore the case be adjourned. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, for the fault of the lawyer, the litigants should not suffer. He has brought on record the application dated 15.11.2014 in which it is stated that the counsel has gone in another court situated at Maati, therefore the case be adjourned. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, for the fault of the lawyer, the litigants should not suffer. There is some substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. As has been noticed from the perusal of the order-sheet, not on one occasion, but on four occasions, adjournments were sought on the ground of absence of the counsel. Those applications were allowed on payment of Rs. 200/- cost. The client, who has engaged lawyer for pursuing the case, has to be vigilant and in case, the lawyer was not cooperating and not appearing in the case, the proper course for him was either to change the lawyer or make a complaint to the Bar Council regarding the conduct of the lawyer. Both things are absent in this case. 7. On being confronted as to what is the rent of the accommodation in dispute, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rent is Rs. 200/- per month. In the petitioner's possession, according to the counsel of the petitioner, there is one room and Varanda situated in Hata in Kanpur City. The rent at present must be on higher side may be 15 to 20 times. Therefore, the possibility of collusive act seeking adjournment in between the lawyer and client cannot be ruled out. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has through out been present and it is the lawyer, who has been seeking adjournment. I feel it necessary that the court should have given one more opportunity to pursue the application. 8. In these process, the plight of landlord, who has filed release application in the year 2005, which was allowed exparte in the year 2011 cannot be ignored, and he must be compensated by awarding some costs, therefore on payment of Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent-landlord by the petitioner, impugned orders dated 15.11.2014 and 28.11.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Small Cause Judge, 1st, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 19/23/11 are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The cost is to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today before the prescribed authority, which can be withdrawn by the landlord. Case No. 19/23/11 are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The cost is to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today before the prescribed authority, which can be withdrawn by the landlord. The prescribed authority is directed to decide all the misc. applications within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties. In case, adjournment is sought by the petitioner that may be allowed only after imposing the cost of not less than Rs. 5000/- with the direction to deposit the cost by the next date fixed. In case, the cost is not deposited by the next date fixed, the right of participation in further proceeding of defaulting party be closed. 9. Since this order has been passed in absence of the respondents, therefore, they are at liberty to seek recall/modification/variation of this order.