R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Present petition arises out of the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2, the landlady, under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, and is directed against the order dated 21.8.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing Misc. Case No. 28/74/97.
(2.) Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2 filed a release application on the ground of her perosnal need and comparatively greater hardship against the petitioner in respect of a portion of House No. 2/452, Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar, for short the building in question. The application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner who has denied the claim of respondent No. 2 and asserted that her need was neither genuine nor bona fide. It was also pleaded that in case the application was allowed, he will suffer comparatively greater hardship than the hardship which may be occasioned to respondent No. 2 if his application was rejected. Parties filed evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after going through the material on record held that the need of the respondent No. 2 for the building in question was bona fide and that in case the application was rejected, he will suffer comparatively more hardship, by its judgment and order dated 3.9.1993. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act on 24.5.1993. It was on 19.7.1995 that the said appeal was dismissed for default. The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 28.7.1995 for recalling the order dated 19.7.1995. The said application was also dismissed for default on 15.9.1997. It was on 25.10.1997 that an application for restoration of restoration application was filed alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 28/74/97. The said application was also dismissed for default on 29.4.1999. The petitioner again filed an application on 11.5.1999 for recalling the order dated 29.4.1999. The said application was allowed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 5.2.2000 and the order dated 29.4.1999 was recalled. The effect of the said order was that Misc. Case No. 28/74/97 was restored to its original number. The Appellate Authority thereafter heard the parties and held that the petitioner was not prosecuting his appeal diligently and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application was shown. The Appellate Authority after noticing the relevant facts dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the application filed under Order IX, Rule 9 read with Section 151, C.P.C., by its judgment and order dated 21.8.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.;