JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Ratan Kant Sharma learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Mehrotra for the opposite parties. 2. Revisionist is the owner and landlord of Building No. 6-A, Pratap Market, Aminabad, Lucknow. He let out a shop consisting of Ground Floor and basement to the opposite party on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- per month. Opposite party shifted his business to a shop in Pahwa Building, Pratap Market, Aminabad, Lucknow illegally and unauthorizedly sublet the shop in question to one Jai Kishan Daryani. Revisionist sent a notice on 16.6.2000 to the opposite party about his illegal subletting. In the month of June, 2007 the opposite party again illegally sublet the shop in question to one Kanhiya Hemwani on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. and did not pay the rent to the revisionist from April, 2007. Revisionist sent a composite notice on 15.12.2009 terminating tenancy and demanding arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. On 16.12.2009 the notice was duly served on the opposite party. 3. Revisionist filed S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2010, Kishan Lal Gulati v. Lakhi Daryani, before the District Judge, Lucknow on which order was passed to register the case and issue notice to defendant, fixing 2.4.2010 and the case was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow. Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow again issued notices by both ways fixing 20.5.2010 for written statement. The notice by registered post was served personally on 24.4.2010. Notice by the process server was also served personally on the opposite party on 25.4.2010. 4. The opposite party did not appear nor filed written statement. Case was adjourned to 5.6.2010 for filing written statement. The opposite party did not appear nor filed written statement. Case adjourned to 30.8.2010 for filing written statement and issues. On 24.7.2010 the maximum period of 90 days expired for filing written statement but no written statement was filed nor the opposite party appeared nor moved application for extension of time to file written statement. On 30.8.2010 neither the opposite party appeared nor filed the written statement. Case was adjourned to 27.10.2010. The opposite party on 27.10.2010 appeared through a senior counsel and moved application under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but neither filed written statement nor moved any application for filing the written statement. On 30.8.2010 neither the opposite party appeared nor filed the written statement. Case was adjourned to 27.10.2010. The opposite party on 27.10.2010 appeared through a senior counsel and moved application under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but neither filed written statement nor moved any application for filing the written statement. The trial Court ordered to deposit at his own risk. 5. Revisionist moved an application on 27.10.2010 for closing the defence of opposite party as no written statement was filed within the prescribe period. Case was adjourned to 19.11.2010. Again on several dates i.e. 19.11.2010, 20.11.2010 and 20.12.2010 case was adjourned but neither any written statement was filed nor any application for time to file written statement was moved. Case was adjourned to 1.2.2011. On 1.2.2011 revisionist filed objection to the application under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Case adjourned to 3.2.2011. Again on 3.2.2011, 28.3.2011 and 3.5.2011 the case was adjourned but no written statement was filed. Up till 22.8.2012 several dates have been fixed but no written statement was filed by the opposite party. 6. On 29.8.2012 the opposite party moved application for filing written statement which was opposed by the revisionist. Case was adjourned to 15.10.2012 for filing objection by the revisionist. Revisionist filed detailed objection against the application dated 29.8.2012, case was adjourned to 16.11.2012. Opposite party filed affidavit in support of application. The case was adjourned to 20.12.2012. The case was also adjourned on 20.12.2012. Case was taken up on 14.1.2013. Opposite party filed objections against objection of revisionist dated 15.11.2012. On 13.2.2013 counter-affidavit/objection filed by revisionist against the objection of opposite party. Opposite party filed rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit of revisionist. 7. On 14.5.2013 the argument were heard on the application C-30 and the objection of revisionist against filing of written statement after about two years of period expired for filing written statement. 8. On 16.5.2013 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow allowed the application on the cost of Rs. 2,000/- and allowed the defendant to file written statement. 9. Lower Court has relied upon a case in Sardar Singh and others v. Pooran Singh and others, 2010 (15) SCC 438, as well as a case in Chakravarthy and others v. Mej Ram Chaudhary and others, 2010 SCC, as well as a case Mohd. Yusuf v. Faiz Mohammad, 2009 (3) SCC. 9. Lower Court has relied upon a case in Sardar Singh and others v. Pooran Singh and others, 2010 (15) SCC 438, as well as a case in Chakravarthy and others v. Mej Ram Chaudhary and others, 2010 SCC, as well as a case Mohd. Yusuf v. Faiz Mohammad, 2009 (3) SCC. The earlier two judgments are of 2006 and the facts of the case are not discussed in the matter though they have binding precedent. Yet they will not be very helpful in the present case. So far the case of Mohd. Yusuf is concerned it is a detailed judgment and needs to be carefully gone into. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that they are in exceptional circumstances the Court should allow the written statement to be taken on record even after 90 days’. 10. It will be important to examine what is meant by exceptional circumstances or unavoidable circumstances. The lower Court in the present case has simply given one line reason that the exceptional circumstances are available in the present case. It is a common experience that in a landlord-tenant petition the tenant tends to delay the matter as long as possible. In the present case the defendant had not moved any application for one year ten months for grant of time to file written statement. It is only after a long period that he has moved an application on 29.8.2012 which is a three paragraph application. In this application no good reason has been given except the fact that his lawyer did not tell him that a written statement has to be filed. The notice which is received by the defendant clearly mentions that the person is called upon by the Court to present his side of the case before the Court. It does not require any specific knowledge of law which is not available to any prudent person. He has simply stated that the delay was caused because of the lawyer. In para No. 3 he has stated thus,” that the mistake is bona fide and the delay in filing the enclosed written statement with affidavit is fit to be condoned. The defendant is ready to pay the entire cost.” The Court feels that there is law of seniority in this prayer. The condonation of delay has been asked for as a matter of right. The defendant is ready to pay the entire cost.” The Court feels that there is law of seniority in this prayer. The condonation of delay has been asked for as a matter of right. Offer in the last line to pay the cost gives an impression as if the condonation can be purchased and it is a commodity which will be available to the applicant if he is willing to pay the price for the same. It gives a clear impression that the delay was deliberate and a small token of money can be paid by the defendant who is a businessman. It is also a common knowledge that the cost which the Courts impose are only as a matter of token. With the passage of time and high cost of living the cost which is imposed by the Court is not a deterrent. 11. In the present case a cost of Rs. 2000/- has been imposed for a delay of one year and ten months. 12. The Court feels that it is a good bargain on the part of the defendant. If Rs. 2000/- can buy a valuable period of merely two years and delay can be condoned the bargain on the part of the defendant can be a good business proposition. 13. In the matter of Ms. Aditya Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Bombay Swadesi Stores Ltd., 2007 (67) ALR 782, the Hon. Supreme Court in para No. 5 have quoted from the case of Kailash v. Nankhu and others, their Lordships have observed as under : “42. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defense and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the Court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the Court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the Court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the Court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended.” 14. Their Lordships have emphasized that condonation of delay should not be a routine rather it should be an exception. The reasons for deviating from the schedule of Order VIII Rule 1 should be recorded in writing and to the satisfaction of the Court. It has been further observed that the Courts may impose cost for dual purposes; one of them being to deter the defendant from seeking any intention of time just for the asking. A sum of Rs. 2000/- as awarded in the present case is definitely not going to deter a businessman from purchasing time of about two years. 15. This Court is not satisfied at all that such tactics should be encouraged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently appointed Mr. Arun Mohan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court to submit a report for the reasons and the ways to cut out the delays in the judicial proceedings. A detailed report has been submitted by him. One of the main reasons for ‘delay’ has been has been shown as ‘adjournments’. In the present case the Court is not satisfied that the delay was caused because of unavoidable circumstances. The petitioner seriously ill. He was not out of country. There was no flood or any other extraordinary circumstance which had prevented him from causing this delay. The objections were filed by the plaintiff. There was no application for exemption of delay of one year and ten months in filing the written statement. The petitioner seriously ill. He was not out of country. There was no flood or any other extraordinary circumstance which had prevented him from causing this delay. The objections were filed by the plaintiff. There was no application for exemption of delay of one year and ten months in filing the written statement. The case of the petitioner is entirely different from the case laws presented by the defendant and discussed by the lower Court. 16. On the basis of this discussion the Court comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the lower Court was not justified in the circumstances of the case. However, the lower Court appears to have been moved by the consideration that every defendant should get a chance to present his case. Opportunity of hearing is one of the most important principles of natural justice. Hence, the Court is not inclined to in interfere on this count. At the same time this Court also does not want to give a latitude to the respondents to get away by paying a small cost for getting exemption of delay of almost two years. Court feels that a cost of Rs. 2000/- is too easy rather it should be awarded for delay of every month. Since there is a delay of one year ten months which comes to about twenty two months, the written statement should be allowed to be taken on record, in case the defendant deposits a sum of Rs. 44,000/- within a month. Suit should also be decided expeditiously. 17. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Revision is disposed of in the above terms.