K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) This dispute in the case is with respect to a shop situated in Saharanpur. This shop belongs to the petitioners. This had been let out to respondents nos. 3 and 4. On the basis of a permission granted under section 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, No. III of 1947, the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the respondents nos. 3 and 4 on 15-9-1967. The suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed by the High Court on 6-8-1968. In execution of the aforesaid decree the petitioners obtained possession on 24-1-1969. On 21-4-1970 respondents 3 and 4 filed an application before the District Magistrate Saharanpur, purporting to be under section 8 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947, alleging that the petitioners had committed breach of the provisions of the Act and criminal proceedings be taken against them. This application was contested by the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that the building was entirely a new construction and the provisions of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 were not applicable. The petitioners also alleged that the new shops were not given on rent to any person. On 26-10-1972 the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report to the District Magistrate that it was not advisable to launch any criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The report was accepted.
(2.) After the enforcement of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the respondents 3 and 4 made an application under section 12/13 of the aforesaid Act for allotment of the shop on the ground that as the possession of the tenants admitted by the petitioners was illegal, the shop was open for allotment. The case was subsequently transferred to the court of the S.D.M. Deoband of 30-4-1973. The S.D.M. found that the shop was vacant on the ground that it had been let out illegally by the petitioners and directed for the notification of the vacancy-Against the order dated 30-4-1973 the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court being numbered as writ petition No. 2949 of 1973. On 22-8-1975 the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable against the order declaring vacancy. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the proceedings for allotment were restarted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Petitioners again filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for being given an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that the order notifying the vacancy earlier was incorrect. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application therefore and after or allotted the shop on 20-9-1976. The petitioners, filed a review application. The review was rejected on the 19th May, 1977.
(3.) The petitioners thereafter filed two revisions before the District Judge. One of them had been preferred against the order dated 20-9-1976 allotting the premises to respondents 3 and 4 and another revision against the order dated 19-5-1977. The revision filed against the order dated 19-5-1977 was numbered as Rent Revision No. 100 of 1977 whereas revision preferred against the order dated 20-9-1976 was numbered as Misc. Case No. 52 of 1977. As the latter revision had been filed after the period of limitation prescribed for filing the same, this application was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The ground for condonation given was that the petitioners had been advised by their counsel Sri Pushkar Nath, who conducted mostly Rent Control cases. That the District Supply officer had no jurisdiction to pass the allotment order dated 26-9-1976 hence there was no necessity for filing a revision against the said order under section 18 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The petitioners were advised to file a review application before the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioners asserted that acting bonafide on this advice, the petitioners filed a review application on 22-9-1976. This review application was dismissed on 19-5-1977. The petitioners claimed that the time spent in prosecuting the review application with effect from 22-9-1976 to 9-5-1977 was liable to be excused. They further alleged that on being advised on 15-5-1977 the petitioners had filed the revision challenging the order dated 26-9-1976 on 19-5-1977.;