JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 22.2.2013 and 22.11.2013 and 3.12.2013 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ghazibad in Small Causes Case No. 24 of 2012 and Misc. Case No.11 of 2013 and Misc. Case No. 01 of 2013 respectively. 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.2.2013, SCC Case No. 24 of 2012 (Amit Jain Vs. Smt.Rose Dev) has been decreed exparte against the petitioner directing her to hand over the possession of Flat C-702A, 9th storey at Sefran Block Niho Skotis Guardan Indrapuram District Ghazibad, further to pay an amount of Rs. 53,300 along with interest towards arrear of rent and till the delivery of possession to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month rent along with interest. The rate of interest was assessed 6%. Vide order dated 22.11.2013, the petitioner's application no. 5-C for condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 read with Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') has been rejected, whereas vide order dated 3.12.2013, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ghaziabad in Execution Case No. 01 of 2013 (Amit Jain Vs. Smt. Rose Dev) has issued a writ for delivery of possession to the landlord fixing 16.12.2013. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears the respondent no. 2 has filed SCC Case No.24 of 2012 for payment of arrears of rent and eviction. The said suit was decreed exparte on 22.2.2013. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application was rejected holding that the applicant has not come with clean hands before the court and filed false affidavit explaining the reason for non-appearance before the court. The learned Judge has noted various dates on the basis of certified copies of the orders produced before him that the petitioner was present on those dates in different cases at Gautam Budh Nagar Ghazibad and Delhi Tees Hazari Court etc. It is also noted that on 12.12.2012, on an application filed under Order XV, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure an order was passed for depositing Rs. It is also noted that on 12.12.2012, on an application filed under Order XV, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure an order was passed for depositing Rs. 1,01,074/-. In the event of non-deposit of aforesaid rent, her defence was strucked off vide order dated 28.1.2013. Thereafter on 8.2.2013, it was ordered to be proceeded exparte against the petitioner and on 22.2.2013, the suit was decreed exparte. It is also noted that the petitioner has entered into accommodation in dispute on the basis of rent note executed in between the parties. The tenancy was effective with effect from 1.7.2011 to 31.5.2012. The learned Judge after noting all these facts and placing reliance upon the various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court, has rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay holding that delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 5. On being confronted as to whether the petitioner has entered into the accommodation on the basis of the aforesaid rent note, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true but he contended that even before the expiry of the period of tenancy, the matter was brought into litigation. 6. On being further confronted as to whether the period of tenancy after 31.5.2012 has been extended or not, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that this period has not been extended. Now in this backdrop, even if it is assumed that the court below was harsh in not condoning the delay, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, considering the facts that the petitioner is a widow lady, two weeks' time is granted to her for vacating the accommodation in dispute. For the period of two weeks, the petitioner will not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute.