JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Since these two writ petitions have arisen out of same set of facts, therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In, short, the facts of the case are that the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, late Radha Krishna was tenant of a shop and father of petitioner No. 3, namely, late Mushtaque Ahmad was tenant of another shop. The then landlord, namely, Pratap Narain Jaiswal filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for release of the aforesaid shops in his favour on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and re-construction. During the pendency of the aforesaid application before the prescribed authority, the parties entered into a compromise wherein it was agreed that the landlord will take the residential portion on the first floor and on the ground floor, the shops will be constructed. The father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall be provided with a shop measuring area of 7' x 20' and father of petitioner No. 3 shall also be provided a shop measuring area of 7' x 20'. It is further agreed upon that the construction of the shops were completed by 30th April, 1979 and if the possession is not given by the date fixed, the landlord shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per day to the each of the aforesaid tenants and in case the amount of damage is not paid as agreed upon, it can be recovered from the Court. The prescribed authority in terms of the aforesaid compromise entered into by the parties, passed the order and the tenants have vacated the shops. Since the landlord has not proceeded with the construction of the shops, therefore after 30th April, 1979, the tenants filed an application before the prescribed authority to issue a certificate for recovery of the amount in terms of the compromise under Rule 24 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. In short the 'Rules'. This application was allowed by the prescribed authority vide his order dated 4th April, 1981 for recovery of the amount but only to the extent of two years rent and not for the amount of damages as agreed upon under the agreement. Consequent whereof, the tenants have vacated the shops, thus the petitioners have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7064 of 1981 for the recovery of the amount by seeking modification in the order passed by the prescribed authority on the ground that they were entitled of the claim of damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per day till they were not given the possession of the newly constructed shops, as agreed upon between the parties under the compromise entered into between the landlord and the tenants and that it should not be confined only for a period of two years. The landlord-respondent filed counter-affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition, wherein he has admitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and a compromise application supported by an affidavit was filed before the prescribed authority and that the case was decided in terms of the compromise. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition (7064 of 1981), the petitioners filed an application seeking a further direction from the Court that the landlord be directed to handover the possession of the shops, which have now been constructed. The landlord filed a counter-affidavit to the application filed by the petitioners stating therein that it is incorrect to say that the shops were reconstructed. In paragraph 4 of the aforesaid counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 7064 of 1981, the landlord has asserted, which reads thus :
"4. That the contents of paragraph 4 of the affidavit are denied and it is stated that every effort was made on behalf of the landlord to start reconstruction of the disputed property but the same could not be started on account of various factors beyond the control of the landlord."
2. The matter remains pending when the petitioners again asserted that the shops have now been reconstructed. This Court on 14th October, 1998 directed the respondents of the writ petition to appear in person before this Court on 12th January, 1999. This Court also directed the landlord-respondent to put back the petitioners in possession of the shops in question, which was agreed to be provided to the petitioners or to show cause by the date fixed. When the aforesaid application came up for hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord made a statement that he has no instruction thus, this Court issued direction to the Registry of this Court to issue notice to the respondent-landlord and the case was directed to come up on 12th January, 1999. The Registry sent the registered letter, but the un-delivered cover was not received back, thus on the basis of the report of the notice was also sent and shall be deemed to have been served under Explanation II to Rule 12 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court. On 3rd February, 1999, this Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Deoria to put the petitioners-tenants back in possession over the shops in question within one week from the date of the presentation of the certified copy of the order along with true copy of the report. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, as stated above, the heirs of the petitioners have taken possession of the shops on 18th February, 1999. Bengali Prasad Verma, the respondent No. 4 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38758 of 2003, has filed an application that he may be put back into the possession of the shops in question, which under the order of this Court dated 18th February, 1999 was handed over to the tenants. The case of Bengali Prasad Verma was that he has purchased this shopping complex from respondent-landlord, the erstwhile landlord who was party to the Writ Petition No. 7064 of 1981 and in this writ petition also through registered sale deed dated 3rd August, 1998 and in fact he was in possession of the shops in question on the date the possession was delivered to the heirs of tenants, he had no knowledge regarding pendency of the present writ petition. To this application filed by Bengali Prasad Verma, the heirs of the tenants have filed a counter-affidavit. This Court vide its order dated 13th July, 1999 decided the controversy in the following terms :
"The question is whether the transferee from respondent No. 1 i.e., (Bengali Prasad Verma) is entitled to the restoration of the possession of the shop in question."
3. Further questions were raised and answered by this Court vide its order dated 13th July, 1999 which is being reproduced as the same is matter of record. Ultimately this Court held as under :
"The applicant (Bengali Prasad Verma) has not stated anywhere the date on which the construction of the building was complete. The date of completion of the construction of the building has to be determined as given in Explanation (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, which provides that the construction of the building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which first assessment thereof comes into effect............"
4. Ultimately, this Court vide its order dated 13th July, 1999 held that "As the writ petition was pending, he (Bengali Prasad Verma) is bound by all the orders passed in the writ petition and cannot escape his liability merely on the ground that he is purchaser of the property without any knowledge of the proceedings of the writ petition."
5. This Court vide its order dated 13th July, 1999, passed in earlier writ petition (7064 of 1981) directed as under :
"The petitioners, however were to file an application for allotment under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, The petitioners have died. It is necessary for their heirs to file an application for allotment under Section 24 (2) of the Act and if so advised, with an application to condone the delay in filing the application. In case they do not file any application or no allotment order is passed in their favour, they will be liable to re-deliver the possession of the shops. In case they file an application for allotment within three weeks from today, the District Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law within two months.
The application is accordingly disposed of."
6. The landlord aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an application for review of the aforesaid order dated 13th July, 1999, passed by this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid review application, the tenants have filed an application for allotment as directed by this Court vide its order dated 13th July, 1999, along with the delay condonation application under Section 24 (2) of the Act. This application for review has been rejected by this Court. When the question regarding the maintainability of the allotment application, particularly in view of the fact that there was earlier an application and the application filed in pursuance of the direction issue by this Court will be termed as second application and its maintainability is dealt with and this Court has held as under :
"Firstly there is no bar in filing the second application when the first application has not been disposed of. Admittedly, the first application has not been disposed of and no order has been passed till today as the Magistrate has kept the proceedings in abeyance during the pendency of the writ petition.
Secondly, the petitioners have died and the heirs are entitled to file another application under Section 24 (2) of the Act.
It is contended that the heirs have no right to file an application under Section 24 (2) of the Act and secondly the heirs can file an application for substitution as provided under Rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act before the prescribed authority within 30 days from the date of death of the party concerned.
It is settled law of this Court that period prescribed for filing application for substitution under Rule 25 is directory and no mandatory. Secondly, the proceedings remained suspended and in these circumstances the heirs of the petitioners can either file an application for substitution which is alleged to be pending or file an application under Section 24 (2) of the Act. Thirdly, it may be noted that the District Magistrate has power to condone the delay, if any, in filing the application under Section 24 (2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners then urged that the building was demolished on the basis of the compromise and if such building is demolished under a private agreement, the provision of Section 24 (2) is not applicable. He has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Ram Dularey Gupta v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1981 ARC 47. This decision is not applicable to the present case. The parties had entered into compromise in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act and the prescribed authority had passed the order under the said provision. As the building was demolished under the orders passed by the prescribed authority the provision of Section 24 (2) is applicable."
7. With the aforesaid observation, the application for review of the order dated 13th July, 1999 was rejected by this Court vide its order dated 22nd December, 1999.
8. Coming back to the controversy raised by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38758 of 2003, it is contended that after the order dated 13th July, 1999 was passed by this Court and the tenants (their heirs), the present petitioners have filed an application under Section 24 (2) of the Act, as directed by this Court vide its order dated 13th July, 1999, along with an application for condonation of delay, if any, before the District Magistrate, who transferred the matter to be decided by Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Deoria, who allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the allotment application vide its order dated 21st April, 2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Bengali Prasad Verma filed revision under Section 18 of the Act. The revisional court vide its order impugned in the present writ petition has allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Deoria on 21st April, 2001 and vide its order dated 7th August, 2003 held that the tenants are not entitled for the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, so far as it relates to the condonation of delay in filing the allotment application under Section 24 (2) of the Act. It is this order dated 7th August, 2003, which has been challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38758 of 2003.
9. I have heard Sri T. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant and Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that after this Court passed the order dated 13th July, 1999, the condonation of delay was only the mere formality, particularly in view of the order passed by this Court dated 13th July, 1999, coupled with the fact that the review application for review of the order dated 13th July, 1999 has already been rejected by this Court. He further submitted that the scope of interference under Section 18 of the Act is limited, as would be clear from a bare perusal of Section 18 of the Act, which is reproduced below :
"18. Appeal against order of allotment or release. --(1) No appeal shall lie from any order under Section 16 or Section 19, whether made before or after the commencement of this section, but any person aggrieved by a final order under any of the said sections may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer a revision to the District Judge on any one or more of the following grounds, namely :
(a) that the District Magistrate has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law ;
(b) that the District Magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law ;
(c) that the District Magistrate acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) The revising authority may confirm or rescind the final order made under Sub-section (1) or may remand the case to the District Magistrate for rehearing, and pending the revision, may stay the operation of such order on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit.
Explanation.--The power to rescind the final order under this sub-section shall not include the power to pass an allotment order or to direct the passing of an allotment order in favour of a person different from the allottee mentioned in the order under revision.
(3) Where an order under Section 16 or Section 19 is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made to him on that behalf, place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such order or such part thereof as has been rescinded, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary."
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1999 (1) AWC 15 (SC) : 1998 (89) RD 607 (SC), the delay having been condoned by Up Zila Adhikari, the revisional court has erred in law in interfering with the order of condonation of delay in the revisional exercise of power under Section 18 of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is reproduced below :
"It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.
In this case explanation for the delay set up by the appellant was found satisfactory to the trial court in the exercise of its discretion and the High Court went wrong in upsetting the finding, more so when the High Court was exercising revisional jurisdiction."
12. The provision under review before the Apex Court in the aforesaid case and the provision of Section 18 of the Act are pari materia. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38758 of 2003 deserves to be allowed. The order dated 7th August, 2003, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, passed by the revisional court, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority to decide the revision afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment.
13. In view of the fact that since Writ Petition No. 38758 of 2003 has been allowed by me, no further orders are required in Writ Petition No. 7064 of 1981, which has been disposed of. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.