Sudhir Agarwal,J. This writ petition has been filed by co-tenants. The respondent-landlord instituted Rent Case No. 33 of 2003 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") for ejectment of petitioners and one Sri Chandra Bhan son of Sri Ram Lagan, who were all tenants in the premises in dispute. Sri Chandra Bhan put in appearance and entered into a compromise with landlord while petitioners did not appear before court below and, therefore, the application was decided by releasing accommodation in favour of respondent-landlord and directing petitioners and Sri Chandra Bhan to vacate the premises in question vide order dated 24.11.2008. Thereagainst the petitioners preferred an application under Section 22 of Act, 1972 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure alongwith delay condonation application but the same has been rejected by court below vide order dated 28.02.2013 finding no justification to recall the order and now this writ petition has been filed by petitioners after almost 11 months thereafter. 2. No satisfactory explanation has been given in respect to extraordinary delay and laches in the present writ petition. 3. Undue delay and laches are relevant factors in exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the cases of Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and others 2004(1) SCC 347 and Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and another 2006(11) SCC 464 , the Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others J.T.2007(4) SC 253, observed that after a long time the writ petition should not have been entertained even if the petitioners are similarly situated and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. It was held that delay and laches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In M/S Lipton India Ltd. And others vs. Union of India and others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 and M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others 1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. Union of India and others 1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993 , it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed recently in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330= 2007(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra). The aforesaid authorities of the Apex Court has also been followed by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423 . 4. Even otherwise, on merits I do not find any patent illegality of irregularity in the impugned orders and none could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Dismissed. ________________