JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vikram Nath, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order dated 14.9.2004 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kanpur (Annexure-9 to the petition) whereby application for restoration of appeal as well as condonation of delay has been rejected. 2. The landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case No. 14 of 1993. After giving opportunity to the parties the Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 19.8.1996 allowed the application. Against the said judgment the tenant filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 136 of 1996. It appears that 29.5.2001 was the date fixed in the appeal. On the said date the son of the appellant (tenant) went to attend the case and on the said date the appeal was decided in terms of compromise/undertaking alleged to have been furnished by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant contacted his Counsel and wanted to find out further development in the month of July 2001. However, his Counsel according to him, informed him that the appeal has been allowed. The certified copy was applied for which was made available on 21.8.2001 whereupon it came to the knowledge of the appellant that in fact there was some undertaking which was not signed by him but had been got signed by his son, who according to him was not mentally fit and also was a minor. He thereupon changed his Counsel and got an application for recall of the order dated 29.5.2001 filed on 7.9.2001, along with an application for condonation of delay. Both the applications were supported by separate affidavits. The landlord respondent in the appeal filed objections. However, in objection the fact that the son of the tenant appellant has signed the compromise/undertaking is not disputed. The appellate authority vide impugned order dated 14.9.2004 has rejected the application on the ground that after 21.8.2001 the delay in filing the application on 7.9.2001 has not been explained and therefore in the absence of day to day explanation the delay could not be condoned and accordingly rejected both the applications. 3. I have heard Smt. Rama Goel learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Jha learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5. 4. 3. I have heard Smt. Rama Goel learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Jha learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that firstly the son of the appellant petitioner had no authority to sign the undertaking/compromise, secondly the son was not mentally fit and was a minor and therefore, the alleged compromise arrived at on 29.5.2001 was void and against the authority of law. It is further alleged that appellate authority has not examined this aspect of the matter and has rejected the application for condonation of delay on technical ground without going into the substance of the controversy. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to rebut the allegations made in the petition and also the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the authority of the son to enter into the compromise or regarding his mental status and his minority. What has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent is that the appellant petitioner did not take any action against previous Counsel and it was only a malafide action on his part as he wanted to derive certain monetary benefit from the landlord. 6. The moot question is as to whether the son could have entered into the compromise or not. 7. In view of the undisputed position that the son had no authority nor as minor could enter into compromise, the order dated 29.5.2001 based on compromise undertaking itself was void. 8. The approach of the appellate court in rejecting the restoration application and condonation application on technical ground is misconceived as in the affidavit filed by the landlord in response to the affidavit of the tenant along with Section 5 application and also the restoration application did not dispute the fact with regard to the authority of the son to sign the undertaking or that he was a minor. 9. On the facts and circumstances and in view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that the order dated 14.9.2004 deserves to be set aside. 9. On the facts and circumstances and in view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that the order dated 14.9.2004 deserves to be set aside. Further in view of the findings that the son had no authority to sign the undertaking no purpose would be served by remitting the matter for reconsideration of the restoration and also to save time to the benefit of the landlord, the order dated 29.5.2001 is also liable to be set aside. Both the orders dated 29.5.2001 and 14.5.2004 are set aside and the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed as above. Petition Allowed. ———