STATE OF U P Vs. ASHA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the State of U. P. through the Collector and the Trade Tax Officer for setting aside the order dated 31st December, 1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority under section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') enhancing the rent of the building to Rs. 6500/- per month. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 23rd July, 2007 by which the Appeal filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 1st December, 2003 was dismissed as barred by time. It needs to be mentioned that the application for review of the order dated 31st December, 1998 was rejected by the order dated 1st December, 2003.

(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that an application under section 21 (8) of the Act was filed on 13th September, 1994 by the respondent-landlord for enhancement of the rent. A reply was filed by the tenant and after calling for a report, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 31st December, 1998 for enhancement of the rent after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application on 12th September, 2001 for review of the order dated 31st December, 1998. This application was rejected by the order dated 1st December, 2003 holding the no ground for review had been made out apart from the fact that the Review Petition was also barred by time. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 1st December 2003, the petitioners filed an Appeal under section 22 of the Act. Along with the Appeal, an application for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal was also filed. By the order dated 23rd July, 2007 the Delay Condonation Application was rejected and consequently the Appeal was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Appellate Court committed an illegality in rejecting the Delay Condonation Application and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in G. Ramegowda, Major etc. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore,air 1988 SC 897. and in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Knshnamurthy, (1998) SCC 123.