1. The case is fixed today for hearing of the stay application but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal has also been taken up for regular hearing and the learned counsel heard. R and P also been perused. The rent case filed by the respondent/landlord was contested by the appellant/tenant, who filed a written statement. On 5-12-1985 the case was adjourned to 10-12-1985 to allow the appellant to cross-examine the respondent. On 10-12-1985, the Presiding Officer was on leave and according to the appellant the Bench clerk of the Rent Controller notified the date as 4-1-1986 but on 4-1-1986 it was found that the matter had already been decided ex parte on 24-12-1985 and ejectment of the appellant ordered. On 10-12-1985 the Presiding Officer was on leave. R and P shows that the matter was adjourned to 22-12-1985 for final arguments. The case was then decided against the appellant by order, dated 24-12-1985. Mr. S.M.
2. Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent, states that the respondent is interested in a decision on merits with full opportunity to be granted to the appellant to defend the case and for this reason he does not oppose the present appeal. InA my view also, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as an incorrect date had been noted on behalf of the appellant when the cas was adjourned on 10-12-1985 on account of the Presiding Officer being on leave, the order of ejectment is to be set aside to enable th appellant to have a full and proper opportunity to defend the ejectment case filed against him. First Rent Appeal No.88 of 1986 is allowed and the impugned order, dated 24-12- 1985 of the Rent Controller is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision in accordance With law. As the main appeal has been decided and the ejectment order is? set aside, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.310 of 1986 for stay hal become infructuous and is dismissed as such.