Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18213 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1692 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sudhir Gupta Respondent :- Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge Senior Division Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.Mohd Kazim,Pramod Kumar,Syed Jamal Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- Shivendra Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shivendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.12.2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking recall of the ex-parte judgment dated 21.11.2023 was rejected. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of a shop in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant. In the said application, it was specifically pleaded that the shop was required for setting up the son of the landlady, who was unemployed. It was also specifically pleaded alongwith the documents that the petitioner had purchased another shop - the sale deed of the said shop was also annexed. The application was filed in the year 2019. Almost for a period of four years, no reply has been filed. The order further records that on account of non-presence, the suit was directed to be proceeded ex-parte on 14.11.2022, however, the same was recalled on an application being moved subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file objections. The matter was thereafter listed on 03.04.2023 and on the said date, the right to file objection was closed. The order further records that on various occasions, the tenant had appeared but did not file a written statement and thereafter, the suit was decided ex-parte vide judgment dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure - 3). 4. In the said judgment, the prescribed authority considered the bonafide need, as alleged and established on the basis of documents. The Court also considered the comparative hardship and specifically the fact that the tenant had acquired another commercial premises and thus, the release application was allowed. Subsequently, an application was moved for recall of the ex-parte decree by means of an application dated 20.12.2023 alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The said application is on record as Annexure - 4. In the entire application, the only ground taken was that the absence of the applicant was not deliberate and the aunt of counsel for the applicant had suffered injury, as such, he had left. No explanation was pleaded as to why the petitioner was not present or an adjournment application was not moved. The trial Court rejected the said application for the reasonings as recorded herein above. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has acquired another commercial premises, which has not been denied in the writ petition or in the application filed, and the petitioner has delayed the proceedings without even filing a written statement for more than four years, it is a clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to somehow linger the proceedings indefinitely. 6. In view thereof, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench