# Smt. Manmohan Kaur v. Additional Commissioner (J) Bareilly and others - **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 1021 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-07-09 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manmohan-kaur-v-additional-commissioner-j-bareilly-and-others-42281 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri Kailash Nath Kesharwani Counsel for the Respondents Anil Kumar Sharma U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act 1972 Section 20 (4)-Striking and of defencedefault in payment of rent w.e.f. 01.05.1976-.registered notice fixing 25.09.1987-employees were on strikewritten statement filed on 25.09.1987 with application seeking permission to deposit entire rent-after several adjournment on 08.04.1988 permission granted-compiled only after 13 years on 23.05.2000-both Courts below refused to extend benefits-held- 08.04.1988 being "first date of hearing" no deposit madeno question of extending benefits under section 20 (4) arises-petition dismissed. ## Text 2 All] Smt. Manmohan Kaur V. Additional Commissioner (J) Bareilly and others 1021 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 13747 of 1995 Smt. Manmohan Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Additional Commissioner (J) Bareilly and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.D. Pathak Sri D.Pathak Sri Rakesh Pathak Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226Requirement of recording reasonsrejection of Section 5 Application as well as dismissal of Appeal-without disclosing any reasons for unsatisfactory explanation for condonation of delaysimilarly dismissal of earlier appeal-heldwithout considering the impact of dismissal of earlier appeal without recording any reason of non-satisfactionorder impugned-unsustainable delay in filling appeal condoned-direction issue to decide appeal on its merit. Held: Para 8 Having perused the pleadings on record as also the impugned order, no reasons have been given by the appellate authority as to why the explanation given by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and it is primarily on this ground that the appeal has been held to be not maintainable as barred by time. The dismissal of another appeal has been stated by way of a fact in the order. There is no indication as to how the said dismissal governs the appeal filed by the petitioner and as to what is the impact of the said order in another appeal. (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.) 1. Heard Shri S.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The Prescribed Authority proceeded in the matter and vide order dated 21st of March, 1994 declared certain land as surplus. 3. The petitioner claiming herself to be a divorced wife of Gurubachan Singh filed an appeal against the said order on the ground that she had no knowledge of the said order. 4. The appeal was filed on 31st March, 1995. An application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was filed supported by an affidavit, a copy whereof has been filed along with writ petition as Annexure No. 2. The petitioner disclosed reasons about the non-filing of the appeal within time and also the date of knowledge whereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner made an inspection of the file and accordingly instituted the appeal. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal on two grounds namely, the explanation given by the petitioner in support of the Section 5, application does not appear to be satisfactory and even otherwise another appeal against the same order had already been dismissed. 1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 6. The writ petition was entertained and an order directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards to the land in dispute was passed on 24.5.1995. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that during the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 2nd of April, 1993 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. It has further been stated that an appeal filed by another person against the same order has already been dismissed and, therefore, there was no ground made out for entertaining the same. 8. Having perused the pleadings on record as also the impugned order, no reasons have been given by the appellate authority as to why the explanation given by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and it is primarily on this ground that the appeal has been held to be not maintainable as barred by time. The dismissal of another appeal has been stated by way of a fact in the order. There is no indication as to how the said dismissal governs the appeal filed by the petitioner and as to what is the impact of the said order in another appeal. 9. In the absence of any cogent reasons on both grounds the impugned order dated 17.4.1995 is unsustainable. 10. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.4.1995 is hereby quashed. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as also the reasons given in support of the delay condonation application, it would be appropriate that the same is considered by this Court itself instead of remanding the said issue after a lapse of 17 years. The delay is accordingly condoned as the explanation is satisfactory and the appeal will be treated to be within time and will be disposed of on merits as expeditiously as possible by the appellate authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the State as well. 12. Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65093 of 2011 Satya Narain Tiwari ...Petitioner Versus Pt. Neelkanth Trust ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kailash Nath Kesharwani Counsel for the Respondents Anil Kumar Sharma U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act 1972 Section 20 (4)-Striking and of defencedefault in payment of rent w.e.f. 01.05.1976-.registered notice fixing 25.09.1987-employees were on strikewritten statement filed on 25.09.1987 with application seeking permission to deposit entire rent-after several adjournment on 08.04.1988 permission granted-compiled only after 13 years on 23.05.2000-both Courts below refused to extend benefits-held- 08.04.1988 being "first date of hearing" no deposit madeno question of extending benefits under section 20 (4) arises-petition dismissed.