Wrong advice of counsel cannot be accepted as a ground for condonation of delay. Vigilance is required in challenging final orders.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. –

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.3.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Gorakhpur in P.A Appeal No. 41 of 2013 whereby the application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been rejected.

2. It appears that the release application namely P.A. Case No. 33 of 1999 (Smt. Shyam Payari Devi v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.) was filed under Section 21(1)(a) read with Section 21(1)(b) of the Act for release of the shop in question. It was partly allowed under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. The rejection of release for the personal need of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) was not challenged. The tenant challenged the release order under Section 21(1)(a) in an appeal namely Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2008 (Smt. Shyam Payari Devi v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.) which was dismissed on 28.9.2012. Against the order of appeal, Writ Petition No. 57469 of 2012 (Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. Smt. Shyam Pyari Devi & Ors.) was dismissed on 5.11.2012.

3. It appears that the present appeal was filed in the year 2013 along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the prayer for condonation of delay. The reason given for delay in filing appeal given therein was that the petitioner could not get correct legal advise. As soon as he came to know that his interest would be effected on account of the dismissal of the release application under Section 21(1)(a), the present appeal has been filed.

4. The Appellate Authority has rejected the release application on the ground that there was no justification for condoning the delay after a period of more than four years. The appellant had appeared in the appeal filed by the tenant and was well aware of the order of rejection of his release on the ground of personal need. Wrong advise of the counsel cannot be accepted as a ground for condonation of delay.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. In the light of provisions as contained in Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation, Letting, Rent & Eviction), Rules 1972, it is apparent that a second release application under Section 21 of the Act is perfectly maintainable and, in case, such application is moved after a period of one year from the date of decision, the findings recorded earlier will not be treated conclusive.

7. It is, therefore, open for the petitioner-landlord to file a fresh release application on the grounds available to him.

8. Moreover, the petitioner was not vigilant to challenge the order which has become final in the year 2008.

9. For all the above noted reasons, there is no justification to interfere in the order dated 2.3.2016 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 5, Gorakhpur, in P.A Appeal No. 41 of 2013.

10. Dismissed.

Petition dismissed.