JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are tenant in the premises in dispute. The respondent landlord applied for the enhancement of rent under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The application was allowed and the rent was enhanced to Rs.15,116/- per month. 3. Aggrieved by the said order petitioners preferred rent appeal No.125/70 of 2001. The said appeal was dismissed in default on 16.1.2012. The petitioners applied for recall of the above order and for restoration of the appeal to its original number. The application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 2.12.2013. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 5. The writ petition has been filed with some latches. The delay in filing the petition has been explained and I am satisfied with the explanation. The delay in filing the petition is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to the counsel for the respondent No.1. 6. On merits the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the counsel for the petitioners Sri Rajesh Bhargav, was selected as a member of the Permanent Lok Adalat and therefore, he was unable to conduct the appeal any further. This led to the dismissed of the appeal. 7. The petitioners on acquiring knowledge of dismissal immediately applied for its restoration but the restoration application has been dismissed on technical ground that the petitioners were careless in engaging another counsel. 8. There is no dispute that the earlier counsel of the petitioners was selected as a member of the Lok Adalat in August, 2011. On account of his selection he has stopped attending the court and ultimately the appeal was dismissed on 16.1.2012. Petitioners have not engaged any other counsel in the meantime. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the reason for the absence on the date fixed appears to be fair and reasonable and in such circumstances, the court below ought to have allowed the application in the larger interest of the justice. It is well settled that when the technicalities and substantive justice are pitted against each other the cause of substantial justice has to be preferred. 10. The courts below failed to take into account the above principle in rejecting the restoration application. 11. It is well settled that when the technicalities and substantive justice are pitted against each other the cause of substantial justice has to be preferred. 10. The courts below failed to take into account the above principle in rejecting the restoration application. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstnaces, the impugned order dated 2.12.2013 is set aside and the order dated 16.1.2012 dismissing the appeal is recalled. The appeal is directed to be restored to its original number with direction that the appellate court to proceed and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order by fixing short and quick date and avoiding all unnecessary adjournments. In case any adjournment become inevitable it shall not be allowed other than by imposing a cost of Rs.500/- per adjournment. 12. The petitioners are directed to deposit 50% of the enhanced rent w.e.f. 28.2.01 within a period of one month from today and to continue depositing the same on monthly basis w.e.f. July, 2014 by the 15th of each succeeding month. The amount so deposited shall remain in court subject to final decision of the appeal. 13. The writ petition is allowed as above.