- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. P. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
(2.) AN application under Section 21 (1) (a) was moved by the landlord, Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner on 31st May, 1994. The petitioner con tested the application, he absented and the application was allowed ex-parte by order dated 22-9-99. The petitioner moved an applica tion for recalling the ex- pane order. His request was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 1-2-2000. Against that order, petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, being petition No. 21243 of 2000, which was also dismissed, with certain ob servation by order dated 10-5- 2000. It was observed that the petitioner may avail a remedy of appeal against this release order passed under Section 21 of the Act and he also preferred an appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 with application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was numbered as Misc. Case No. 94174/2000. It has been rejected by the order, dated 7-4-2001. Aggrieved by it, the present peti tion has been preferred involving jurisdic tion under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned appellate Court has acted mainly on the observation made in Writ Petition No. 21243/2000 decided on 10-5-2000. It appears that he has wrongly interpretated the direction of the Court.
(3.) IN the circumstances the order of the appellate Court cannot be maintained and the matter should be sent for redecision. This petition is therefore allowed and order dated 7-4-2000 passed under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is quashed.;