JUDGMENT : (1) Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tewari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Apoorva Tewari for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who has filed his Power today. (2) This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow, dismissing the Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014 and praying for restoring the same to its original number. (3) Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the provision of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to U.P. Act, 1972) and has pointed out Sub Rule (a) of Rule 22 to say that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 of the CPC would apply where the appellant fails to appear and the Appeal filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in default and not on merits. Learned Senior counsel has also pointed out the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.21265 of 2008 (Shashi Bhushan Anand @ Toni & Others Vs. Smt. Ram Devi & Another) decided on 05.08.2014 to buttress his arguments. (4) In the said case, this Court was considering a similar matter where the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Court but the Appellate Court had dismissed the Appeal arising therefrom on 11.05.2007 and rejected the application of the petitioner for recall of the said judgment on 22.01.2008. This Court had observed that in view of Section 34 of the Act of 1972 read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure are given to the Trial Court under the Act 1972 to discuss an appeal or revision for default and to restore it for sufficient cause. It had relied upon the several judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court to say that just because the earlier counsel of the appellant was present before the Court and had refused to argue it would not amount to an appearance within the meaning of Rule 17 of Order 14 of the CPC. It had relied upon the several judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court to say that just because the earlier counsel of the appellant was present before the Court and had refused to argue it would not amount to an appearance within the meaning of Rule 17 of Order 14 of the CPC. In the said case of Shashi Bhushan Anand @ Toni & Others (Supra), the other counsel who was subsequently engaged was not present and the Court held that there was no appearance of any counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The Appeal should have been dismissed in default rather than on merits. The Court had held that the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction and decided the Appeal on merits in the absence of either of the counsels for the appellant/petitioner. The petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision afresh. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier also challenging the order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Lucknow, as also the judgment dated 26.08.2021 passed in Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014 in reference to which application for recall was moved which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.801-C of 2021. It has been submitted that this Court after placing reliance upon Shashi Bhushan Anand (Supra) and quoting the said judgment in extenso had observed that the Appellate Court should have dismissed the Appeal in default but should not have decided the same on merits. It had also referred to the earlier directions of this Court to decide the matter expeditiously. It had therefore while remanding the matter to the Appellate Court for taking a decision on the Appeal on merits strictly as per law, also directed that the same be decided as early as possible say within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment, and while taking such a decision in Appeal, the Court concerned shall providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. This Court also provided that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the Court concerned as on earlier occasions also this Court had expedited the proceedings in the Appeal. This Court also provided that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the Court concerned as on earlier occasions also this Court had expedited the proceedings in the Appeal. (6) Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out to the Court that the petitioner had moved an application for transfer of the Appeal to another Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution and against which the application for recall was moved which was pending before the District Judge but this Court observed that it was open for the petitioner to approach the District Judge for transfer of the matter. (7) It has been argued that after this judgment dated 23.11.2021 setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.08.2021, the Appellate Court was bound to follow the law and to decide the Appeal within time prescribed and also in case of counsel for appellant failing to appear and to assist it could have only dismissed the Appeal in default but not on merit. (8) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Shri Bhimsen Dixit reported in (1973) 1 SCC 446 and Paragraph-14 thereof where the Supreme Court observed that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court was vested with the power of Superintendence over the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals in the State, When a specific direction had been issued to the Tribunal, then the Tribunal could not ignore the law declared by the High Court and start proceedings in direct violation of it. (9) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to observations made in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta and Another Vs. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in AIR 1962 SC 1893 , where the Supreme Court had observed thus"..................... "if a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case of Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court binding on subordinate courts. It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior Tribunal that all the Tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior Tribunal that all the Tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working; otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer." It has been argued that after this Court had remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the Appeal afresh on merits, only on the ground that it could not have been decided on merits on failure of counsel for the appellant to appear and assist the Appellate Court could have only dismissed the Appeal in default and deciding the same on merits amounted to contemptuous conduct. (10) It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that after the order impugned was passed on 02.03.2022 a recall application has been moved by the petitioner on 09.03.2002 which has been registered as Miscellaneous Case No.222 of 2022 and despite knowledge that the Execution case was fixed on 16.03.2022 the Appellate Court has fixed the recall application for hearing only for 25.03.2022. (11) In sum and substance, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court having set aside the earlier judgment passed by the Appellate Court on merits by observing that since the counsel for the appellant had not appeared the matter could only have been dismissed in default under Order 41 Rule 17 of the CPC by the Appellate Court and could not have been dismissed on merits, yet the Appellate Court has proceeded to decide the Appeal on merits in the absence of the counsel for the appellant. (12) There is no quarrel with the basic proposition of law on which the argument has been made by the learned Senior Counsel, however the law has to be applied in the context of facts which are different in each case. The facts are evident from a perusal of the pleadings on record are as follows:- “The petitioner’s grandfather was initially inducted as tenant in the disputed shop situated In Building No.2, Misra Bhawan, Arya Nagar P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow. After his death the tenancy devolved upon the father of the petitioner. The respondent purchased the shop in question from Dr. R. N. Misra, Dr. After his death the tenancy devolved upon the father of the petitioner. The respondent purchased the shop in question from Dr. R. N. Misra, Dr. D.N. Mishra, Late Colonel J. Misra and Shivanand Misra on 21.08.1999, and the sale deed was registered on 25.01.2000. The petitioners father died on 11.03.2011 and the tenancy of the shop in question devolved upon the petitioner. The Respondent filed an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21(1)a of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 registered as P.A. Case No.67 of 2012 [Chandra Mohan Purswani Versus Hanuman Prasad Mishra]. The case was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 24.12.2013 and the petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the shop in question within two months from the date of the judgment. (a) The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 24.12.2013 in Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014. In the meantime the Respondent had already filed the Execution Case No.24 of 2014 which was pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.20 Lucknow. In Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014, the Appellate Court stayed the order of the Prescribed Authority on 17.02.2014. On 21.11.2014 the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement for challenging the title of the Respondent on the ground that the shop in question was put in trust for the benefit of Jai Narayan Mishra Degree College and the shop could not be alienated by the Trust without the permission of the Director, Department of Education. The Application for amendment was rejected on 29.10.2015 with the finding that the Respondent had been admitted as Landlord in the original written statement and such admission could not be withdrawn by amending such written statement in Appeal. (b) On 15.07.2016 the petitioner made another application bearing No.C-57 for recall of order dated 29.10.2015 and for the consideration of the application for amendment in the written statement. The application for recall of order was rejected on 14.05.2018 on the ground that the order dated 29.10.2015 had been passed on merits by the Appellate Court. (c) The petitioner filed another application Paper No.C-94 seeking amendment in the written statement contending that the sale deed dated 21.08.1999 had been executed by alleged Trustees who had never been inducted as Trustees of the Trust owning the shop in question. The application Paper No.C 94 was rejected on 14.03.2019. (c) The petitioner filed another application Paper No.C-94 seeking amendment in the written statement contending that the sale deed dated 21.08.1999 had been executed by alleged Trustees who had never been inducted as Trustees of the Trust owning the shop in question. The application Paper No.C 94 was rejected on 14.03.2019. The petitioner filed Petition No.8250 (R/C) of 2019 challenging the order dated 14.03.2019. This Court dismissed such petition on 29.03.2019. (d) The petitioner preferred C.M.A. No.40741 of 2019, seeking a review of the order dated 14.03.2019 which was rejected on 16.04.2014. The petitioner preferred another Application Paper No.C-134 seeking leave to deliver interrogatories upon the Respondent on 4.2.2021 with respect to shops which had come into the possession of the Respondent during the pendency of Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014. The Appellate Court by its order dated 4.02.2021, proceeded to treat such application as an application for adjournment and accepted it on payment of cost of Rs.500/- and adjourned the Appeal to 10.02.2021. On 10.02.2021 the petitioner preferred an application for Recall of order dated 4.02.2021 and prayed that his application bearing Paper No.C134 be decided on merit. The application for Recall of order dated 4.02.2021 was heard and rejected by the Appellate Court on the same day. The petitioner preferred another Application bearing Paper No.A -138 seeking amendment in the written statement for asserting that during the pendency of the Appeal, the bonafide need of the Landlord had been satisfied by release of a large portion of the building in his favour by other tenants. The said application was heard on merits on 15.02.2021 itself and the Appellate Court proceeded to consider the said application as an application for adjournment and vacated the interim order dated 17.02.2014 passed in Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014 at the time of its admission. (e) The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.02.2021 before this Court in Writ Petition No.8445 (R/C) of 2021 which was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 25.03.2021 directing the Appellate Court to hear and decide the application bearing Paper No.A-138 for amendment of the written statement on the next date fixed that is on 26.03.2021 and thereafter decide the Rent Appeal itself expeditiously. (f) In the meantime the petitioner had moved another application bearing Paper No.C - 142 on 20.02.2021 praying for recall of order dated 15.02.2021 and for restoration of interim order dated 17.02.2014. (f) In the meantime the petitioner had moved another application bearing Paper No.C - 142 on 20.02.2021 praying for recall of order dated 15.02.2021 and for restoration of interim order dated 17.02.2014. The Appellate Court heard such application for recall and restored the interim order on 16.03.2021. (g) The petitioner moved another application Paper No.C-152 on 17.03.2021 for disposal of application, Paper No. C-153 on 17.03.2021, and then another application Paper No. C-158 while both applications were pending the Appellate Court passed an order on 26.03.2021 that the counsel for the petitioner instead of making submissions in support of the amendment application bearing Paper No.A-138 had sought an adjournment. (h) On 30.03.2021 the petitioner filed another application bearing Paper No.C-160 duly supported by an affidavit bearing Paper No.C-161 for recall of order dated 26.03.2021. (i) The petitioner also made an application bearing Paper No.C- 159 praying for the application for Recall to be heard on 31.03.2021 itself. On 31.03.2021 the Appellate Court directed that the application bearing Paper No.C-159 and C-160 be listed on the next day that is on 1.4.2021. On the next day the applications were not decided and the Rent Appeal was directed to be listed on 6.04.2021 for final hearing. (j) The petitioner in the meantime had moved a Transfer Application before the District Judge, Lucknow, and on 6.4.2021 the Rent Appeal was adjourned to 09.04.2021 on account of pendency of the Transfer Application. The Rent Appeal remained pending and was fixed for 13.08.2021 for hearing. (k) The petitioner moved another Application Paper No.C-179. The Court remained closed on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021 on account of being Second Saturday and Sunday. The next date fixed in the matter was 17.08.2021. The petitioner could not reach the Court on time and later on enquired and it was found that the Appellate Court had listed the Appeal on 21.08.2021 for arguments. (l) The Appeal was thereafter adjourned to 24.08.2021 when it was adjourned for hearing to 26.08.2021. On 26.08.2021 the counsel for the petitioner found out that an ex-parte final judgment had been rendered on 26.08.2021 dismissing the Appeal. (m) The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No.801 C of 2021 seeking restoration of the Rent Appeal and for recall of ex-parte judgment. The Appellate Court issued notice to the Respondent fixing 5.10.2021 for hearing. On 26.08.2021 the counsel for the petitioner found out that an ex-parte final judgment had been rendered on 26.08.2021 dismissing the Appeal. (m) The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No.801 C of 2021 seeking restoration of the Rent Appeal and for recall of ex-parte judgment. The Appellate Court issued notice to the Respondent fixing 5.10.2021 for hearing. (n) In the meantime the petitioner also filed a Petition No.23811 (R/C) of 2021 before this Court praying that Miscellaneous Case No.801 C of 2021 be directed to be decided expeditiously by the Appellate Court. This Court by an order dated 8.10.2021 directed the Appellate Court to decide the Restoration Application on the next date fixed or by hearing the same on a day to day basis. The Appellate Court rejected the Miscellaneous Case No.801 C of 2021 holding that the judgment dated 26.08.2021 was not passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner and had been passed on merits. (o) The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 26.08.2021 in Petition No.26690 (R/C) of 2021. This Court by its order dated 23.11.2021 allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 26.08.2021 with a finding that in the event of nonappearance of the counsel for the appellant, the Appellate Court could only dismiss the Rent Appeal No.6 of 2014 for want of prosecution and could not render a judgment on merits. (p) It is the case of the petitioner that during the COVID-19 Pandemic the functioning of the Civil Court was severely restricted with effect from 9.01.2022 and the Courts were open only for a limited category of cases. With effect from 16.01.2022 the entry of litigants in the Civil Court was also barred. The Appellate Court listed the matter on 17.01.2022, 21.01.2022, 24.01.2022, and 27.01.2022 in quick succession but did not indicate whether the matter would be heard by virtual mode or the counsel were to appear physically. On 27.01.2022 the petitioner was directed to file written submissions within one day and the Appeal was directed to be listed on 29.01.2022. It was adjourned on 29.01.2022 and listed on 3.02.2022. The matter was again listed on 8.02.2022 and 11.02.2022 on which dates the counsel for the petitioner could not enter the Courts premises because entry was prohibited as per Covid-19 Protocol. It was adjourned on 29.01.2022 and listed on 3.02.2022. The matter was again listed on 8.02.2022 and 11.02.2022 on which dates the counsel for the petitioner could not enter the Courts premises because entry was prohibited as per Covid-19 Protocol. Regular hearing in the Civil Court commenced only with effect from 14.02.2022 therefore, it has been argued that the non-appearance of the petitioner/appellant recorded in the order sheet on successive dates appears to be deliberate on the part of the Appellate Court. No hearing took place on all such dates as the counsel for the petitioner did not appear. The Appellate Court fixed the matter on 14.02.2022 for delivery of judgment but later on, adjourned the matter to 24.02.2022 giving time to the counsel for the petitioner to appear and argue the matter or to file written submissions. The counsel for the petitioner did not appear and did not file any written submissions in support of the Appeal on 24.02.2022 and the Appeal was fixed for judgment on 2.03.2022 without hearing the counsel for the petitioner. On 2.03.2022 the judgment was delivered rejecting the Appeal on merits and recording that no oral or written submissions have been made by the Appellant in support of the Appeal.” (13) From a perusal of the judgment and order impugned this Court finds that the Appellate Court has observed that despite several opportunities being given to the appellant for arguing the Appeal on merits, such opportunity was not availed of whereas in the judgments of the High Court dated 11.01.2018, 25.03.2021 and 29.03.2021 it had directed the Appeal to be decided within six months, 15 days respectively or as expeditiously as possible, and the latest judgment of this Court in Petition No.26690 (R/C) of 2021 on 23.11.2021 had directed that the Appeal be decided within two months and that the Appellant would not seek any adjournments. The counsel for the appellant had not appeared. The counsel for the appellant had not appeared. (14) The Appellate Court has made certain observations with regard to conduct of the counsel for the appellant which are necessary to be quoted for a better appreciation of the controversy:- ^^izR;FkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ dks lquk rFkk mudh vksj ls nkf[ky fyf[kr rdksZ dks voyksdu fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls i;kZIr volj fn;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr ugha fd;s x;sa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns'k fnukafdr 26&08&2021 dks vikLr djds i=koyh dks nks ekg ds vUnj vihykFkhZ dks lqudj fof/k lEer vkns'k ds vuqØe es izR;FkhZ }kjk fnukad 13&12&2021 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfr izLrqr dh x;h] uksfVl tkjh fd;s tkus ds mijkar fnukad 24&12&2021 dks Loa; vihykFkhZ gkftj vk;k vkSj mlds }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k dh gh izfr nkf[ky dh x;hA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds voyksdu ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk nksuks i{kks dks lqudj mDr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; nks ekg ds vanj vihykFkhZ dks lquokbZ dk ekSdk nsdj fof/klEer vkns'k ikfjr djuk lqfuf'pr djsA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns'k esa vihykFkhZ ds fo:) viuk LFkkukarj.k izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj ldrk gS] blds fy, og Lora= gSA bl Øe es vihykFkhZ ds }kjk fnukad 07&01&2022 dks LFkkukUrj.k izkFkZuk&i= la[;k 30@2022] ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds ;gkW izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftl ij nksuks i{kksa dks foLrkjiwoZd lqudj fnukad 21&01&2022 dks LFkkukarj.k izkFkZuk&i= fujLr dj fn;k x;kA ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k egksn; us vius mDr vkns'k fnukafdr 21&01&2022 dks LFkkukUrj.k izkFkZuk&i= fujLr dj fn;k x;kA ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k egksn; us vius mDr vkns'k fnukafdr 21&01&2022 ds }kjk vihykFkhZ h ijh xfrfof/k rFkk bl i=koyh dk fuLrkj.k u gksus nsus ds vkpj.k dk fof'k"V :i ls mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds mijkar U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkhZ dks lquokbZ ds fy, dbZ ckj volj fn;k x;k ysfdu ;g tkucw>dj U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha vk;s vkSj muds twfu;j vf/koDrk vkMZj'khV ij vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds ckn frfFk dh tkudkjh izkIr djds pys tkrs gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 23&11&2021 ls ysdj vkt rd dbZ frfFk;ka fu;r gksus rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk iznŸk nks ekg dh le; lhek lekIr gks x;h gS] ysfdu I;kZIr volj fn;s tkus ds ckn Hkh vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls u rks dksbZ fyf[kr cgl nkf[ky dh x;h vkSj ugh O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gksdj ekSf[kd cgl dh x;h] tcfd ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk vius ifji= la[;k 2419/LXXXVII-CPC/e-Courts/Allahabad fnukafdr 02&01&2022 dh xkbMykbu ds iSjk&6 es ;g funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd i{kdkj viuh fyf[kr cgl dEi;wVj lsDLku es nkf[ky dj ldrs gS rkfd U;k;ky; }kjk mDr fyf[kr cgl ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk ldsA mDr ifji= ds vuqØe es vihykFkhZ dks i;kZIr ,ao leqfpr volj iznku fd;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh muds }kjk dksbZ fyf[kr cgl nkf[ky ugh dh x;h vkSj u gh ekSf[kd cgl gsrq mudh vksj ls dksbZ U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gqvkA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr LFkkukarj.k izkFkZuk i= ij cgl gsrq ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds le{k vihykFkhZ mifLFkr gq, vkSj mudh vkSj ls ekSf[kd cgl Hkh dh x;hA mudk ;g vkpj.k ;g iznf'kZr djrk gS fd vihykFkhZ tkucw>dj bl vihy dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds varZxr fuLrkfjr ugh gksus nsuk pkgrs gSA pwafd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; vihykFkhZZ tkucw>dj bl vihy dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznŸk nks ekg dh le; lhek O;rhr gks x;h gS] vkSj U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkhZ dks lkSf[kd cgl vFkok fyf[kr cgl gsrq ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrk tcfd og tkucw>dj nqjk'k; ls U;k;ky; ds le{k ekSf[kd vFkok fyf[kr cgl izLrqr ugha djuk pkgrsA blfy, bl vihy ds fuLrkj.k esa vkSj foYkEc fd;k tkuk leqfpr ugh gksxkA cfYd i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr izys[kh; lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vihy dk fuLrkj.k xq.knks”k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gksxk rnuqlkj i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr izys[kh; lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vihy dk fuLrkj.k xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk jgk gSA^^ (15) It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had stopped the Subordinate Courts from hearing the counsels physically and he has referred to guidelines issued by the High Court, dated 16.01.2022 wherein in addition to earlier guidelines, the High Court had directed the District Judge to ensure 50% of the Judicial Officers of the total strength to attend the Court on time on rotation basis and that Judicial Officers and staff who were in the Family way were to be allowed work from home and the litigants and their representatives would be prohibited in the Court premises but in urgent cases with prior permission of the District Judge, Such persons may be allowed to enter the Court premises. These guidelines were to be effective from 17.01.2022 till further orders. (16) Shri B.K. Saxena, who appears for the respondent has on the other hand, referred to the Guidelines dated 06.02.2022 and 13.02.2022. In 06.02.2022 Guidelines Direction No.1 of the Guidelines issued on 16.01.2022 was withdrawn and all Judicial Officers were directed to function in Court. Point No.7 in the Guidelines issued on 09.01.2022 also stood withdrawn but the remaining Guidelines were to operative with Modification with effect from 08.02.2022. In the Guidelines issued on 13.02.2022, the High Court had directed all the Courts to remain open and to take all Judicial Work and Administrative matters as per applicable Provisions and Rules and Circulars issued from time to time. The Courts were directed not to close even if Covid-19 Positive cases was found in the Court Campus but would continue to work after complete sanitization. The Presiding Officer was directed to take all possible steps to ensure that limited number of parties/counsel are present anyone time for court proceedings, but should not prevent appearance of the parties in the case unless for reasons of illness. Masks were directed to be used as well as sanitizer and social distancing guidelines were to be followed in the Court premises. Necessary cooperation from concerned Bar Association was to be sought to restrict /prohibit the entry of the necessary Advocates /Litigants into Court premises. The Advocates/Litigants were to leave the Court rooms/campus, as soon as their matter was over and only such Advocates and Litigants were to be permitted to enter into the Court Premises whose cases/matters were listed on a particular date. (17) It has been submitted by Shri B.K. Saxena, that Courts started functioning physically in a limited manner with effect from 08.02.2022 and after the guidelines were issued on 13.02.2022 all Courts started functioning in full strength. The entry of Advocates whose matters were urgent were not prohibited at any point of time. The Advocates whose matters were listed were permitted to enter into Court premises and were asked to leave after their matter was over. The entry of Advocates whose matters were urgent were not prohibited at any point of time. The Advocates whose matters were listed were permitted to enter into Court premises and were asked to leave after their matter was over. He has referred to the orders passed by the Appellate Court which have also been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. the orders dated 11.02.2022 filed at Page no.65 of the paper book, wherein the Appellate Court had observed that on calling out of the case, the counsel for the respondent was present. The counsel for the appellant was not present, no written submissions were filed by the appellant. The matter was directed to be listed on 14.02.2022. On 14.02.2022 the counsel for the appellant failed to appear and did not file written statements whereas the respondents written submissions had already been filed and respondents counsel was present. The Court looking into the Covid-19 Pandemic gave the appellant one more opportunity to appear and argue the matter and also to file written submissions. The Court directed the matters to be listed again on 24.02.2022. On 24.02.2022 again no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, no written submissions were filed. The Court had noted that counsel for the respondent was present in Court. The Court directed the matter to be listed on 02.03.2022 for the delivery of judgment. It has been argued by Shri Saxena, that counsel for the respondents was present on every date. The counsel for the appellant, however, did not appear. If the entry of Advocates was prohibited in Court campus even counsel for the respondent could not have appeared. (18) This Court has perused the Guidelines issued by the High Court and it appears that physical functioning of the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals was affected for sometime with effect from 08.02.2022. All the Courts started functioning and also presence of counsels were not restricted and they could apply for permission in urgent matters to the District Judge to appear before the court concerned. However, they had to leave the Court as soon as their matter was over. All the Courts started functioning and also presence of counsels were not restricted and they could apply for permission in urgent matters to the District Judge to appear before the court concerned. However, they had to leave the Court as soon as their matter was over. (19) It is apparent from the order passed by this Court on earlier dated 23.11.2021 that the Court had given only two months time from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the Appellate Court for the Appellate Court to decide the matter and the petitioner was directed not to take any adjournments. The Court had reiterated its earlier orders where this High Court had directed the Appellate Court to decide the Appeal as expeditiously as possible. This Court has also noticed from the Appellate Court’s order that this Court’s order was not produced by the appellant initially before the Appellate Court and the respondent filed the order before the Appellate Court on 13.12.2021. Thereafter a date was fixed for arguments after issuance of notice to the appellant. (20) From the facts as mentioned in the pleadings on record and as have come out from the judgment and order dated 02.03.2022, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no contemptuous disregard of this High Court’s directions dated 23.11.2021 by the learned Appellate Court. It is apparent that the respondent has a decree in his favour of the learned Trial Court since 24.12.2013. The Execution case has already been filed by the respondent which is pending before the court concerned. The release application was filed by the respondent in 2002. The respondent has not been able to get peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question for the past ten years. The Execution case has already been filed by the respondent which is pending before the court concerned. The release application was filed by the respondent in 2002. The respondent has not been able to get peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question for the past ten years. (21) This Court has also considered the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court on its merits and has found that the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court have both noticed that the Landlord wished to establish an independent business of running a Restaurant on the premises in question which was commercial in nature and the Landlord had also stated that when his Restaurant would start running smoothly and profitably, then he would shift his family from the First Floor and the Second Floor and take another residential accommodation, and start using the building in question as a Hotel after taking due permissions and making alterations as are necessary in the construction. The learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have noticed that the building in question was situated in Arya Nagar, Naka Hindola, with Aishbagh Road on the North and a PWD Road on the South and it is a busy Commercial area which has hundreds of Restaurants/Hotels for travellers as it was close to Charbagh Railway Station and the Airport. The need of the Landlord was found genuine and bonafide. (22) With regard to the comparative hardships, the Appellate Court has relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court namely Shiv Swaroop Gupta Vs. M.C. Gupta reported in AIR (2001) SC 2896 that if the tenant fails to look for alternative accommodation even during long pendency of release application, the issue can be decided in favour of the Landlord. (23) The proposition in law having been correctly appreciated and also the facts as mentioned in the pleadings on record, this Court sitting in limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not find any good ground to show interference in the order impugned. (24) The petition stands dismissed. (25) No order as to costs. (26) Learned Senior counsel at this stage, has requested that some time be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. (24) The petition stands dismissed. (25) No order as to costs. (26) Learned Senior counsel at this stage, has requested that some time be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner shall vacate the premises within two months from today and shall continue to pay rent/damages as directed by the learned Trial Court during the time of his possession till such time that he delivers vacant and peaceful possession to the Landlord the rent, if any has already been deposited by the petitioner, shall be adjusted in such dues as are admissible to the Landlord. (27) Since this Court has not interfered in the order of the learned Courts below, it is expected that the Landlord shall give two years of rent that he had offered for the property which was commercial, as compensation to the tenant on his delivering vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the Landlord.