ORDER :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff - opposite party no. 4.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 30.04.2019 in Misc. Case No. 45 of 2018 (Shrawan Vs. Javed) under Rule 32 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to "Rules, 1972") read with Section 151 C.P.C. passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 18, Deoria, rejecting the restoration application 4 Ga, filed by the applicant-petitioner for recall of the ex-party judgment and decree dated 07.04.2018 in P.A. Case No. 01 of 2017 {Javed Ahmad Vs. Smt. Renu Kushwaha, Dipu Kushwaha, Gaurav Kushwaha (defendant 1st set) and Venketeshwar (defendant 2nd set)}.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the very outset that he is not pressing the relief no. 2 since the application has been decided by the impugned order.

Facts:-

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the defendant 1st set/respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the tenants of a portion of the disputed house and the defendant no. 4 Venketeshwar (defendant 2nd set) is tenant of a separate portion/shop in the disputed house No. 201, Ward No. 22, Abubkar Nagar, Station Road, Tappa-Deoria, Pargana - Salempur Majhauli, Tehsil & District - Deoria. The aforesaid disputed house was originally owned by one Brijish Johara, son of Farukh Chisti who had let out separate portions in the aforesaid house to the defendant 2nd set and the father of the defendant 1st set. He sold the disputed house to the plaintiff-opposite party no. 4 Sri Javed Ahmad by a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2013. The aforesaid plaintiff/opposite party no. 4 Javed Ahmad filed a P.A. Case No. 01 of 2017, alleging that a registered notice dated 22.09.2015 and 10.02.2014 were given by him to the defendant 1st set and the defendant 2nd set to vacate the disputed house on the ground of bonafide need of the disputed accommodation. The notices were shown to be served by substituted service i.e. by the alleged publication of notice in some news paper "Jagat Asha". Thereafter the P.A. Case was proceeded ex-parte and an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.04.2018 was passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 18, Deoria, giving reasons and his findings as under:-

^^izLrqr okn esa nkf[ky lk{; ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; dk ;g er gS fd oknh fookfnr edku dk Lokeh o edku ekfyd gS rFkk izfroknh izFke i{k o f}rh; i{k fdjk;snkj gSA oknh dks fookfnr edku dh ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gSA ;fn oknh lnHkkoh vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij iz'uxr edku dks mlds i{k esa voeqDr ugh fd;k x;k rks oknh dks vf/kd dfBukbZ dkfjr gksxhA

i=koyh ij miyC/k ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{;ks ds voyksdu ds mijkUr U;k;ky; bl er dk gS fd oknh vius okni= ds dFkuksa dks lkfcr djus esa ,di{kh; :i ls lQy jgk gSA blds [k.Mu esa i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha gS ftlls oknh ds dFkuksa ij vfo'okl fd;k tk;sA vr,o oknh dk vkosnu vkKIr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA^^

5. It was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff-opposite party no. 4 Javed Ahmad that the defendant 2nd set, namely Sri Venketeshwar is missing since the year 2013. It appears that when one Sri Subhas son of the defendant 2nd set heard about the aforesaid P.A. Case No. 01 of 2017, he filed an impleadment application 28 Ga stating that the defendant no. 4 is missing since the year 2013 and, therefore, he may be impleaded as defendant. The Impleadment application 28 Ga was rejected by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 18, Deoria, by an order dated 16.02.2018 on the grounds firstly that the applicant - Subhash son of Venketeshwar could not file any evidence to establish that his presence is necessary in P.A. Case No. 01 of 2017 for effective disposal of the case and secondly that seven years have not passed since the missing of defendant no. 4