GOPI CHAND Vs. A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order dated 14.9.2004, passed by Additional District Judge, Kanpur (Annexure-9 to the petition) whereby application for restoration of appeal as well as condonation of delay has been rejected.

(2.) The landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case No. 14 of 1993. After giving opportunity to the parties the prescribed authority vide judgment dated 19.8.1996 allowed the application. Against the said judgment the tenant filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 136 of 1996. It appears that 29.5.2001, was the date fixed in the appeal. On the said date the son of the appellant (tenant) went to attend the case and on the said date the appeal was decided in terms of compromise/undertaking alleged to have been furnished by the appellant. Thereafter the appellant contacted his counsel and wanted to find out further development in the month of July, 2001. However, his counsel according to him, informed him that the appeal has been allowed. The certified copy was applied for which was made available on 21.8.2001, whereupon it came to the knowledge of the appellant that in fact there was some undertaking which was not signed by him but had been got signed by his son, who according to him was not mentally fit and also was a minor. He thereupon changed his counsel and got an application for recall of the order dated 29.5.2001, filed on 7.9.2001, along with an application for condonation of delay. Both the applications were supported by separate affidavits. The landlord respondent in the appeal filed objections. However, in objection the fact that the son of the tenant appellant has signed the compromise/ undertaking is not disputed. The appellate authority vide impugned order dated 14.9.2004 has rejected the application on the ground that after 21.8.2001 the delay in filing the application on 7.9.2001, has not been explained and therefore in the absence of day-to-day explanation the delay could not be condoned and accordingly rejected both the applications.

(3.) I have heard Smt. Rama Goel learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. K. Jha learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5.