Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri J.N. Maurya, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri R.K. Mishra, Advocate, for respondent No. 4, Sri Dinesh Singh.

2. This writ petition is a glaring example of negligence and lethargy on the part of a statutory body and officials not only in the matter of managing the affairs of the Department, but also in legal matters.

3. House No. 11/510, Sooterganj, Kanpur Nagar was on rent with petitioners. They were running a primary school since 1948. The rent admitted between the parties was 72.50 per month including water tax and sewage tax. The area of accommodation in question is 186.63 sq. meter which includes constructed area of 138.9 sq. meter.

4. Landlord, namely, Aditya Kishor and others, instituted proceedings for enhancement of rent under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) by filing an application which was registered as Case No. 84 of 1995 before City Magistrate/ Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “RCEO”). RCEO rejected the said application by order dated 12.8.1998 on the ground that landlord has not given proper valuation and estimation for determining rent. Aggrieved thereto, landlord preferred Appeal No 131 of 1998 which was allowed vide judgment dated 10.12.2003 and the case was remanded to RCEO for deciding it afresh on merits. The application of landlord was again registered by RCEO as Case No. 6 of 2004 and he decided the same vide judgment dated 15.1.2007 determining rent of the accommodation in question at Rs. 2,167/- per month since 1.4.1994, i.e. the first day of next month from the date of application dated 8.3.1994.

5. Petitioners alongwith the Director (Basic Education), Lucknow and Education Superintendent, Basic Education Board, Moti Jheel, Kanpur preferred Appeal No. 8/74 of 2007 before District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which came up for consideration before Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar. The appeal fixed on 2.5.2008 when dismissed for want of prosecution since none appeared on behalf of appellant, i.e., petitioners. An application for restoration of appeal was filed by petitioners on 29.5.2008, registered as Misc. Case No. 10/74 of 2008, but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2011 by Appellate Court. It is this order which has been assailed in this writ petition.

6. Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that Restoration Application was filed within less than 30 days before the Appellate Court and there was no delay in filing the same, yet Appellate Court has declined to restore appeal, which is illegal and arbitrary.

7. From the record, however, I find from order sheet of Appellate Court, a complete inaction and lack of pairavi with impunity on the part of petitioners in the aforesaid appeal. Petitioners or their counsels have not appeared before the Appellate Court on various dates earlier also. The appeal was entertained and registered on 1.12.2007 issuing notice to opposite parties therein fixing 8.1.2008 for objection and hearing. Appellants were permitted to take steps within 7 days. On 8.1.2008, when case was taken up, none appeared before Appellate Court on behalf of appellants. The Court also noticed that even steps were not taken for service of notice upon opposite parties in appeal. The Court granted indulgence and permitted appellants to take steps within seven days and fixed 8.2.2008 for objection/ hearing. Again on 8.2.2008, neither any one appeared on behalf of appellants nor they had taken steps for service of notice upon opposite parties in appeal. The Court still granted indulgence and deferred the matter to 31.3.2008 for objection/ hearing and granted 7 days’ time to the appellant for taking steps. Again there was a complete failure on the part of petitioners inasmuch on 31.3.2008 neither anyone appeared on behalf of petitioners nor they had taken steps.