Shashi Kant Gupta - (1.) THE aforesaid writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.3.2000, passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 has been allowed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioners are the landlords and owners of the disputed premises No. 104A/170 Rambagh, Kanpur Nagar. They filed an application under Section 21 (8) of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, by order dated 31.1.1996 allowed the application under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and enhanced the rent to Rs. 4,900 per month plus water tax. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a review application before the court below for reviewing the order dated 31.1.1996 and the same was dismissed on 13.5.1998 as non-maintainable. Thereafter an appeal under Section 22 was filed against the order dated 31.1.1996 on 28.5.1998 alongwith an application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 22 of the Act against the order dated 31.1.1996, which was registered as Case No. 468/74/98. The respondent No. 1 by order dated 10.3.2000 allowed the application filed under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 22 of the Act. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is illegal inasmuch as the contesting respondents could not show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It has been further submitted that the contesting respondents filed the review application against the order dated 31.1.1996 (whereby rent was enhanced) in order to delay the proceeding of the case although the said review application was not at all maintainable. It was further submitted that day-to-day delay has not been explained by the contesting respondent and the appeal was filed by a delay of 817 days. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has acted illegally and arbitrarily in condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that the delay was sufficiently explained and there was no deliberate and wilful default on the part of contesting respondents to file appeal after the period of limitation. It was further submitted that due to wrong advise the review application was filed against the order dated 30.1.1996 and when the review application was dismissed on 13.5.1998, immediately thereafter, after seeking permission from the concerned authority the appeal was filed on 28.5.1998 without any further loss of time. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below is legal and just and cannot be interfered with. Heard Sri Ankush Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri I. S. Singh learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and perused the record.;