The exclusion of certain sections of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the proceedings under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and the inapplicability of the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, due to simultaneous contesting before multiple forums.

By means of this petition, moved under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6-8-1982 (Annexure 8 to the petition), whereby an application moved under Section 24 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), is dismissed by respondent no. 1 i.e. District Jude, Nainital.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits. and counter affidavit filed by them.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was tenant in a shop situated in Jwala Line, Ramnagar, District Nainital. Respondent No.2 Mohd. Kasim, was his landlord. An application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972,was moved by respondent no. 2 Mohd. Kasim before the Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, for release of his shop for setting up business of his son. (Earlier Kahsipur was part of District Nainital). The petitioner contested the application. However, after hearing the parties, said application for release of the shop, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 5.5.1977. The petitioner preferred an appeal against said order and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 1.7.1977, by third Additional District Judge, Nainital. Para 6 of the Writ Petition shows that after the writ petition of petitioner was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court against said orders, a special leave to appeal was filed before the Apex Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and the same was also dismissed. However, the Apex Court allowed time to the petitioner up to 30.4.1979, to vacate the shop. The shop was vacated by the petitioner and landlord obtained the possession of the same on 7.5.1979. The allegation of the petitioner (tenant) is that after obtaining possession, the landlord's sons did not start the business within the time allowed under the law i.e. until 26.7.1979. In the circumstances, as alleged by the petitioner, he moved an application under Section 24 of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for restoration of possession to the tenant. The petitioner's case is that he was wrongly advised to moved said application before the prescribed authority and actually the same should have been moved before the appellate court, which dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the ousted tenant (present petitioner) filed another application under Section 24 of the Act to get back possession of the shop, before District Judge, Nainital, in the year 1981. Meanwhile, petitioner' continued to prosecute the similar application filed earlier, before the Prescribed Authority.

The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application on merits on 30.01.1982. Before that, Prescribed Authority refused the permission sought by petitioner to withdraw the said application on 16.12.1981. The court of District Judge, Nainital, after hearing the parties also dismissed the application, moved under Section 24 of the Act, on 6.8.1982 (annexure 8 to the petition), on the ground that the same was barred by time. Aggrieved by the same this Writ Petition is filed before Allahabad High Court on 1.12.1982. (The Writ Petition is received by transfer from Allahabad High Court to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000).

4. The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 was available to the petitioner for the purpose of condonation of delay under Section 501 said Act, in moving the application before the appellate court. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, alleging that the view taken by the District Judge, Nainital (the appellate court), in rejecting the application under Section 24 of the Act, as barred by time, is erroneous in law.

5. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here that relevant provision of law applicable to the case. Sub-sectio