Sudhir Agarwal,J. Heard Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pradeep Chandra, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.07.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 139 of 2003 and Misc. Case No. 106 of 2003 dismissing petitioners' delay condonation application and consequently petitioners' appeal has also been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 3. The dispute relates to House No. 181, old No. 154, situate at Mohalla Chaudharayan, City, Jhansi. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") initiating proceedings for release of aforesaid accommodation came to be filed by respondent-landlord, i.e., Smt. Omi Wala Nigam wife of Sri Brahm Chand Nigam on the ground that it is required by applicant for herself and her family members and, therefore, should be released by directing defendants-tenants, i.e., petitioners before this Court, to vacate the same, which is a Primary School, namely, Shishu Mandir running in the accommodation in question for the last more than 45 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that notice issued by Prescribed Authority was not actually served upon petitioners, as a result whereof they could not contest the matter before Prescribed Authority and an ex parte order was passed releasing accommodation in question by allowing application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 vide order dated 05.02.2001 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Jhansi. When petitioners came to know about aforesaid ex parte order, an application registered as Misc. Case No. 26 of 2006 preferred before Prescribed Authority on 07.04.2001 but the same was also dismissed on 08.09.2003 and thereagainst petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 45289 of 2003 before this Court in which an interim order was passed. 5. Simultaneously, against the order dated 08.09.2003 the petitioners also preferred appeal before District Judge, Jhansi, registered as Appeal No. 106 of 2003, vide memo of appeal dated 09.09.2003. This appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.07.2008 on the ground that it is not maintainable. Another appeal alongwith delay condonation application registered as Misc. 5. Simultaneously, against the order dated 08.09.2003 the petitioners also preferred appeal before District Judge, Jhansi, registered as Appeal No. 106 of 2003, vide memo of appeal dated 09.09.2003. This appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.07.2008 on the ground that it is not maintainable. Another appeal alongwith delay condonation application registered as Misc. Case No. 139 of 2003 was preferred before District Judge, Jhansi against the ex parte order dated 05.02.2001, which has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi vide order dated 24.07.2008 dismissing application seeking condonation of delay and consequently appeal was also dismissed as barred by time. It is this order dated 24.07.2008, which has been assailed in this writ petition. 6. It is evident from record that after ex parte order came to notice to petitioners, they were prosecuting their remedy by filing application before Prescribed Authority seeking recall of ex parte order and after its dismissal they prosecuted their remedy before this Court. Whether the remedy which they prosecuted was rightly advised or not, I need not go into this question, but suffice it to mention that since petitioners were prosecuting such remedies as were permissible to them in law and they were all independent and separate proceedings, it cannot be said that delay in filing appeal was intentional, deliberate and without any just reason. 7. Moreover, if an ex parte judgment is given against a defendant, he has both the remedies available, i.e., he can file appeal against the judgment, if provided in the statute and also can seek recall of ex parte order in the same court by filing application. It cannot be said that when petitioners filed appeal against initial judgment it amounts to prosecuting a parallel proceedings inasmuch as other proceedings were against the order passed by Prescribed Authority rejecting application for recall of ex parte order. In any case, in my view, the delay occurred in filing appeal was properly explained by petitioners and, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court has committed error in dismissing delay condonation application only on the ground that since petitioners were prosecuting other remedies, their explanation is not creditworthy. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.07.2008 is hereby set aside and delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.07.2008 is hereby set aside and delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned. Since it is an old matter, the Lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- by petitioners. ______________