S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) A release application filed under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by landlord-respondent against the tenant-petitioner numbered as R.C. No. 50 of 1994, was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/ 1st Additional JSCC, Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 22nd April, 1997. Against the said judgment and order, respondent landlord filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act, being Rent Control Appeal No. 132 of 1997, IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by judgment and order dated 6th March, 1999, allowed the appeal and consequently release application of the landlord was allowed. In the appeal at the time of actual argument learned Counsel for the tenant, who was respondent No. 4 in the appeal was not present, hence the appeal was allowed after hearing only the argument of the learned Counsel for the landlord/appellant. After more than 300 days tenant petitioner filed rehearing application on 5th January, 2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The said application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 1/74/2000. The rehearing application has been rejected by Additional District Judge Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2002 as barred by time after holding that no ground for condonation of delay was made out.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order.
(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties I am of the view that even though the Union of India tenant-petitioner did not take as much care in conducting the case as a prudent litigant shall take still I feel that delay in filing application cannot be said to be a result of utter negligence. As far as possible, efforts must be made for decision on merit.;