JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petttioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 30.11.1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 4 of 1996 and the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/A.C.M.M. Vth, Kanpur Nagar. No copy of the said order dated 20.12.1995 has been filed along with the writ petition.
3. This writ petition was directed to be listed along with the record of Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998. The record of the said Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998 has been placed before me today.
4. The dispute relates to a portion of the House No. 110/211 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur. The said portion has been referred to hereinafter as the "disputed portion".
5. It appears that by the order dated 29.4.1992, vacancy was declared in respect of the disputed portion. Thereafter, by the order dated 2.5.1992, the disputed portion was released in favour of the respondent No. 1 (landlord).
6. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner Deo Narain Tewari and one Vishwanath (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 2) filed an application for review under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the "Act") praying for review of the said order declaring vacancy and the said release order.
7. The said review application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/A.C.M.M.-II, Kanpur Nagar by the order dated 20.12.1995.
8. Thereafter, it appears, the said Vishwanath filed revision being Rent Revision No. 87 of 1995 under Section 18 of the Act against the said order dated 20.12.1995.
9. It further appears that the present petitioner Deo Narain Tewari also filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act being Rent Revision No. 4 of 1996.
10. The said two revisions were consolidated, and by the order dated 30.11.1998, both the said revisions were dismissed by the learned IXth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
11. It appears that against the said order dated 30.11.1998, the said Vishwanath filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998 wherein the present petitioner, Deo Narain Tewari was impleaded as respondent No. 4. It further appears that the said writ petition was dismissed in default on 4.7.2002. A restoration application dated 11th October, 2002 was filed in the said Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998. The said restoration application was supported by an affidavit of Sri Santosh Misra who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition.
12. Subsequently, it appears, on 23.10.2002, a statement was made before the Court by Sri Jitendra Pratap Singh, advocate holding brief of Sri A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that he did not wish to press the said application. In view of the said statement, the said restoration application was dismissed by the order dated 23.10.2002 and the interim order was also vacated.
13. It appears that in the meanwhile, the present writ petition was filed by the said Deo Narain Tewari on 22.10.2002 in the registry.
14. As noted above, the petitioner, Deo Narain Tewari in the present writ petition has impugned the said order dated 20.12.1995 and the said order dated 30.11.1998. The present writ petition is highly belated. The explanation as given in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition is quoted below :
"That the delay in filing the present writ petition is totally bona fide as the petitioner never received any notice of the Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998 as such he never engaged any counsel in the said case, as such, the delay in filing the present writ petition is totally bona fide and is liable to be condoned."
15. The aforesaid explanation given in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition is totally vague and lacking in material particulars.
Further, in Paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that he was assured by the said Vishwanath (father of the respondent No. 2) that joint petition would be filed. The petitioner has not made any averment as to what effort has been made by the petitioner since 1998 when the said Writ Petition No. 44827 of 1998 was filed by the said Vishwanath to find out the position regarding the said writ petition.
16. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today. Along with the said supplementary affidavit, photostat copy of the death certificate of the said Vishwanath has also been filed. The said death certificate shows that the death of the said Vishwanath took place on 4.4.2001. Therefore, even if, the version given by the petitioner in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition is to be believed, still there is no explanation as to what effort has been made by the petitioner since the death of the said Vishwanath on 4.4.2001 to find out as to what has been done in the said writ petition filed by the said Vishwanath.
17. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
18. Even otherwise, having perused the judgment and order dated 30.11.1998, I do not find that there is any illegality in the said order which calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly.