ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners, who are the landlords of the accommodation in question, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge the orders dated 5th January, 2005 and 22nd March, 2005, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after be referred to as 'the Act', whereby the appellate authority by the order dated 5th January, 2005, have stayed the execution of the order under appeal during the pendency of the appeal and by the order dated 22nd March, 2004, the appellate authority have condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 22 of the Act.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners-landlords filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act for the release of the accommodation in question in their favour on the ground that the landlords bona fide required the said accommodation for their personal use. The respondents-tenants contested the aforesaid release application filed by the landlords. The aforesaid application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 8th July, 2004, without hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-tenants on the ground that the counsel for the tenants-respondents absented. Thus, an appeal under Section 22 of the Act was filed by the respondents-tenants against the order of the prescribed authority dated 8th July, 2004. Since the appeal was filed beyond time, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay along with the appeal and it was prayed that since the landlords are now proceeding for the execution of the order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 23 of the Act, the execution may be stayed. A perusal of the order dated 5th January, 2005, makes it clear that the aforesaid order has been passed staying the execution proceedings during the pendency of the appeal, which is marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the order dated 22nd March, 2004, Annexure-1A to the writ petition, passed by the appellate authority shows that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-landlords contended that since the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit, therefore unless the delay is condoned, no interim order could be passed by the appellate authority. It has been further contended that the interim order can be passed only against a pending appeal, which was instituted in accordance with law and for this reason the order dated 5th January, 2005, deserves to be quashed. The order dated 22nd March, 2005. Annexure-1A to the writ petition, has also been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the landlords-petitioners. The statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords appears to be incorrect in view of the order Annexure-1A to the writ petition, wherein the impugned order says that Mohammad Shafik has filed an objection 15 Ga opposing the application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority has further observed that the order dated 22nd March, 2005, has been passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties.
4. In view of what has been stated above, the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords with regard to the order dated 22nd March, 2003 is wholly untenable and deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. So far as the order dated 5th January, 2005, is concerned, the same is interlocutory interim order, within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords then submitted that since the appeal is of the year 2004, therefore the same may be directed to be decided at an early date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.