JUDGMENT : - B.K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. P. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1. 2. AN application under Section 21 (1) (a) was moved by the landlord, Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner on 31st May, 1994. The petitioner con tested the application, he absented and the application was allowed ex-parte by order dated 22-9-99. The petitioner moved an application for recalling the ex- pane order. His request was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 1-2-2000. Against that order, petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, being petition No. 21243 of 2000, which was also dismissed, with certain observation by order dated 10-5- 2000. It was observed that the petitioner may avail a remedy of appeal against this release order passed under Section 21 of the Act and he also preferred an appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 with application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was numbered as Misc. Case No. 94174/2000. It has been rejected by the order, dated 7-4-2001. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred involving jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 3. THE perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned appellate Court has acted mainly on the observation made in Writ Petition No. 21243/2000 decided on 10-5-2000. It appears that he has wrongly interpreted the direction of the Court. 4. IN the circumstances the order of the appellate Court cannot be maintained and the matter should be sent for re-decision. This petition is therefore allowed and order dated 7-4-2000 passed under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is quashed. 5. THE learned Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay of the petitioner, riot influenced by any observation made in the order, dated 10-5-2000 of this Court. He will decide the application on merits and for the purpose with totally ignore the observation made in W. P. No. 21243 of 2000. 6. THE learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 at this stage has also argued that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings. THE release application is pending since the year 1994. He will decide the application on merits and for the purpose with totally ignore the observation made in W. P. No. 21243 of 2000. 6. THE learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 at this stage has also argued that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings. THE release application is pending since the year 1994. In the circumstances he does not want to oppose the application under Section 5, Limitation Act. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The petition is allowed. How ever, considering the arguments, the learned counsel the Addl. District Judge Kanpur Nagar before whom the appeal is pending is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits within a period of three weeks positively from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. The petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.