( 1 ) IS there any virtue in insisting upon the strict compliance of procedural requirement against the considerations of substantial justice? The question has arisen in the background of almost unending struggle been a landlord and a tenant. The petitioner is a tenant against whom the respondent-landlord filed Civil Suit No 460 of 1979 in the court of Civil Judge (SD) Narol. The respondent landlord filed the suit for eviction of suit premises which consist of rooms. The premises are situated in Odhav locality of city of Ahmedabad. The rent of the suit premises is Rs. 57. 00 per month plus other taxes. The respondent-landlord alleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 12/12/1978 till 31/07/1979 It was also alleged that the petitioner-tenant had not paid the taxes. The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner-tenant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. Though a notice demanding the arreas of rent was served upon him he neglected to pay the rent. It was also alleged that the respondent-landlord required the suit premises for his personal bona fide use. The respondent-landlord also alleged that the petitioner-tenant was causing nuisance and annoyance and therefore he was liable to be evicted from the premises.

( 2 ) ONLY on the ground of arrears of rent the suit was decreed ex-party by the trail court on 23 1980 The petitioner-tenant filed an appeal being Civil appeal No. 89 of 1980 in the court of learned District Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. She respondent-landlord appeared in the appeal and submitted written of objections inter alia contending that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and hence it was liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation alone. The appeal was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately on 3/12/1980 when the matter was called out the petitioner-tenant and his Advocate were absent and therefore in their absence the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner-tenant preferred Civil Revision Application No. 2005 of 1980 in this High Court and challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned District Judge Narol by which he dismissed the appeal. The revision application came up for hearing before this Court (Coram: I. C. Bhatt J.) on 15/03/1984 This Court allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge Narol and directed to remand the matter to the lower appellate court for proceeding further in accordance with law.

( 3 ) WHILE disposing of the civil revision application decided on 16/03/1984 this Court made the following observations :"in any view of the matter interest of justice required that the lower appellate Court ought to have waited for some time or ought to have restored the appeal more particularly in view of the fact that the decree of the trial court was an exparte decree and should have given the petitioner some opportunity to explain his case. It is true the lower Appellate Court has power to dismiss the Appeal summarily. However in the facts and circumstances of this case the lower appellate Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to how the appeal was within time. In the above circumstances without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case I remand this matter to the lower appellate court for rehearing of the appeal and for deciding the application for the condonation of delay on merits if any made by the petitioner". Accordingly after the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court the question arose about the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is an undisputed position that an application for condonation of delay was filed on 20/12/1984 and not when the appeal was filed. The learned Assistant Judge who heard the appeal came to the c