Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for release of shop situated at the ground floor of House No. 311/26 on the ground of personal need. Petitioner did not file any written statement, hence the Prescribed Authority allowed application vide judgement dated 29.04.1995 ex parte and directed petitioner to vacate premises in question within one month. 3. The petitioner moved an application for recall of release order dated 29.04.1995 and this application was registered as P.A. Misc. Case No. 47-C of 1995. This application was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.01.1998. Again a recall application was moved for recall of order dated 17.01.1998 and was registered as P.A. Misc. Case No. 17-C of 1998. This application was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 01.12.2001. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 also filed, separately and independently, Suit No. 229 of 2000 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow seeking a permanent injunction the defendant should not handover possession of property in dispute to any third party. The petitioner then after about eight years moved another application registered as P.A. Misc. Case No. 3-C of 2009 alongwith delay condonation application for recall of order dated 01.12.2001. The court below has rejected delay condonation application by means of order dated 10.05.2011. The present writ petition has been filed assailing these three orders dated 10.05.2011, 17.01.1998 and 01.12.2001 (wrongly typed in prayer as 01.12.2010). 4. The facts above are self explanatory and evident to show a total recklessness in pursuing the matter before court below. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to death of his counsel Sri Harsh Dev Srivastava he was not in a position to know about dismissal of application on 01.12.2001 and that is how such a huge delay has occurred. 6. The explanation offered by learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly sketchy, unsatisfactory and lacks bona fide. In para 10 of his affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application petitioner has admitted that his counsel Sri Harsh Dev Srivastava was residing near his house. 6. The explanation offered by learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly sketchy, unsatisfactory and lacks bona fide. In para 10 of his affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application petitioner has admitted that his counsel Sri Harsh Dev Srivastava was residing near his house. If that be so, there was no occasion for petitioner of not to have received information about the death of his counsel or rejection of applications repeatedly for want of prosecution. In the application submitted before court below as well as this writ petition, petitioner has conspicuously neither placed on record copies of his application so as to allow this Court to peruse the averments contained therein nor has mentioned the date of death of Sri Srivastava. 7. Besides, in the order dated 29.04.1995 it has been mentioned by Prescribed Authority that petitioner appeared before it but did not file any written statement and also absented subsequently. In the objection dated 16.04.2010 filed by respondent no. 2 in para 7 it has been stated that petitioner got power filed on 09.11.1993 marked as Paper No. C-8 and the suit was decreed on 24.09.1995, meaning thereby petitioner deliberately shown laxity in the matter and there is total lack of due diligence on the part of petitioner. The court below has given cogent reasons for not accepting petitioner's explanation justifying condonation of delay of almost eight years. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent error apparent on the face of record in the aforesaid order dated 10.05.2011 passed by court below warranting any interference. The order(s) accordingly warrant no interference. 8. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. _