- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 4-9-1998, 28-4-1999 and 10-9-1999. In brief, the facts case of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery against the petitioner as the petitioner was in arrears of rent. It was pleaded that the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evident) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, were not applicable as the building in question was the Wakf property. Summon ses were issued by the trial Court, which were served upon the petitioner on 2-3-1998. In spite of due service of summonses upon defendants, no body turned up to contest the suit. The trial Court, therefore, directed the suit to proceed ex-pane on 18-8-1998 and ultimately the suit was deceased ex-pane on 4-9-1998. Challeng ing the validity of the srid decree, an ap plication under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 30-11- 1998 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said application was objected and opposed by the contest ing respondent, landlord. The trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record came to the conclusion that sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not shown. The said application was, therefore, dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 28-4-1999. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 10-9-1999. Hence the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner utterly failed to demonstrate any illegality in the orders impugned in the present peti tion. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that the order passed by the Courts below were concluded by concur rent findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record. I have gone through the material on record. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that in spite of due service of notice/summonses nobody turned up to contest trie case. It has also been held by the Court below that the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, was not explained in accordance with law and the explanation offered for the same was not found satisfactory and sufficient, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed. O nOt find any illegality Or infir mity in the Orders passed by the COurts belOw. NO case fOr interference under Ar ticle 226 Of the COnstitutiOn Of India is made Out. The writ petitiOn fails and is dis missed. PetitiOn dismissed. .;