Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) SRI Surendra Kumar Agrawal (the contesting respondent) is landlord of the premises in dispute. Sri Ram Murti Saran (the petitioner) is tenant. Sri Surendra Kumar Agrawal filed an application registered as Rent Control Case No. 16 of 1988 under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition and is required for the purposes of demolition and new construction. This application was allowed ex -parte vide order dated 14th February 1989 by a non -speaking order. Petitioner filed restoration application on 7.3.1989. This application was also dismissed on 6.4.1990. Subsequently the petitioner filed an appeal on 18th April, 1990 against the order dated 14.2.1989 releasing the premises under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. In this appeal the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay. This application for condonation of delay, was dismissed on 19th November, 1990, hence the present writ petition. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Jain, Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner had filed an affidavit supporting his application to condone the delay. In this affidavit the petitioner has mentioned that he acted on bonafide legal advice and had earlier filed application under Rule 22 of the Act to set aside the order dated 14th February, 1989 and after dismissal of this application, he filed appeal on 18th April, 1990. In view of the same there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal earlier and the Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay. The Appellate Court has given benefit of the period spent in prosecuting the application under Rule 22 of the Act but not has given benefit of the period from 6th April, 1990 to 18th April, 1990. This is a very short time and this time was spent by the petitioner to obtain proper legal advice and as such it can not be said that there was no sufficient cause to file appeal earlier. The order dated 19.11.1990 is illegal and I should have remanded the matter back to the lower Appellate Court for deciding the case on merit but the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 14th February, 1989 is a non -speaking order, it does not indicate whether Rule 17 is complied or not. In view of this the order of Prescribed Authority dated 14th February, 1989 and the order dated 19th November, 1990 are hereby quashed. The result of quashing of these orders is that the order dated 6th April, 1990 dismissing the petitioner's application under Rule 22 is automatically set aside. The parties may appear before the Prescribed Authority on 15th November, 1999 and by that date the petitioner may file his evidence, and thereafter the Prescribed Authority may decide the case expeditiously at an early date. With these directions the present with petition is disposed of.;