NARENDRA SINGH SAZWAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioner prays for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 31-5-2000 whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the ap plication filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also dismissed the ap peal. Prayer for a writ otmandamus direct ing the respondents not to interfere in his peaceful possession of the petitioner over the house in dispute has also been made.

(2.) IT appears that the contesting respondent No, 2 landlord Shri Guhb Rai, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for short, "the Act. " Said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. After parties produced evidence, arguments were heard by the Prescribed Authority. Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties, dismissed the release application by judgment and order dated 20- 3-1993. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by respon dent No. 2 challenging the validity of the said order. The appeal filed by the landlord was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh. IT was on 12-5-1999 that the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application. The petitioner there after filed an appeal alongwith an applica tion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act contenting that he came to know about the order of dismissal on 24-4-2000. He, there after, applied for certified copy and filed an appeal on 3-5-2000. The application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay was objected to and opposed by the con testing respondent No. 2. IT was pleaded that the petitioner had full knowledge of the decision of the Prescribed Authority, other facts stated in the application for condonation of delay were also denied. As the petitioner made allegations against the local Counsel Mr. D. S. Rana to the effect that he told him that the release applica tion was dismissed. The Court below has also given opportunity to Mr. D. S. Rana to explain his conduct. Mr. D. S. Rana per sonally appeared in the Court and also filed affidavit denying the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay. IT was categorically stated that he, Mr. D. S. Rana, has ever told the petitioner that the release application was dismissed. The Court below, after perusing the material on the record, came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for condona tion of delay. The petitioner slept over his rights. The delay in filing the appeal was not explained in accordance with law. The Court below, therefore, dismissed the ap plication by its judgment and order dated 31-5- 2000 and also dismissed the appeal. Hence the present petition.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the release application was allowed on 12-5-1999. IT is also not disputed that the appeal was filed in 3-5-2000 about one year after the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Ap peal was filed under Section 22 of the Act which itself provides for filing the appeal which reads as under:- "22. Appeal.-Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such ap peal. "