ORDER

N.D. Ojha, J. - Respondent 3 is the landlord of a shop of which the petitioner is the tenant. An application was made by respondent 3 in the year 1976 for release of the said shop under cls. (a) and (b) and sub-s. (1) of S. 21. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that it was needed by him bona fide for his own use. His case, as is apparent from the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 10th Feb. 1978, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, was that he was badly in need of the sad shop for carrying on business along with his brothers and that they had no other shop at their disposal for the said purpose. His case further was that the petitioner was not carrying on any business in the said shop and was keeping it locked. He further asserted that the petitioner had taken on rent another shop in the name of Chandra Kiran Devi near the railway station and did not really require the shop in question. By asserting these facts respondent 3 apparently emphasised that great hardship will be caused to him if the shop in question was not released and that on the other hand no hardship of in all events much lesser hardship would be caused to the petitioner if the application for release was allowed. He also pleaded that the shop in question was in a dilapidated condition and he wanted to reconstruct it.

An affidavit in support of the application was also filed by respondent 3. The summons of the application was served on the petitioner and it appears that even though he filed a written statement he did not care to file any affidavit in support of the facts stated in the written statement. The case seems to have been got adjourned from time to time and ultimately 10th Feb. 1978 was the date fixed for hearing. On that date the petitioner abstained and the application for release was allowed ex parte relying on the affidavit filed by respondent. 3. in support of the aforesaid application. Subsequently an application was made by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order on 6-3-1978 i.e. a few days before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for the said purpose. This application was dismissed on 17-3-1979. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed on 27-3-1979 summarily on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order allowing the respondent's application under S. 21 of the Act. Not only that the petitioner had chosen not to file an appeal against the order dated 10-2-1978 within the prescribed period of limitation before the District Judge, he also chose not to file any such appeal against that order which was the order whereby the application of respondent 3 under S. 21 had been allowed notwithstanding the order passed by this Court on 27-3-1979 in the writ petition referred to above.

On the other hand, he now chose to file an appeal before the District Judge against the order dated 17-3-1979 whereby his application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 10-2-1978 was dismissed. This appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 4th May, 1979 on the ground that an appeal against that order was not maintainable. It is then that he filed an appeal against the order dated 10-2-1978 after about thirteen months thereof on ;-5-1979 along with an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. This application has been dismissed by the District Judge on 11-8-80 on the finding that no sufficient cause had been made out of condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the aforesaid order of the District Judge dated 11-8-1980 as also the order dated 10- 2-1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of respondent 3 under S. 21 of the Act.

2. It has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that the appeal which h