1 ca9865.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9865 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 21524 OF 2011 Habibsaheb s/o Khajasaheb Maniyar, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Natraj Rang Mandir, Parli-V. Tq. Parli-V, District Beed. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Fate Mohammad s/o Jan Mohammad Raj, Age: 60 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Parli-V, Tq. Parli-V, District Beed, and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. G.R. Syed, Advocate for applicant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : This application is filed for condonation of delay of 971 days in filing this Civil Revision 2 ca9865.11 Application. Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 26-09-2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed in Rent Appeal No. 1 of 2002. The operative part of the order impugned in this Civil Revision Application reads thus : " : O R D E R : (1) Appeals are partly allowed. (2) The decree for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement is hereby refused. (3) The decree for possession on the ground of default is hereby granted on the following terms; A) If the tenants i.e. appellants herein deposits the entire arrears of rent with effect from 1-11-1988 to the landlord or in this Court within 15 days from today, the decree for possession is hereby 3 ca9865.11 refused, failing which the tenants shall vacate the possession of the suit premises in favour of landlord the respondent No.1 herein. (4) No order as to costs." 2. In the application for condonation of delay, the applicant has stated that, the applicant is in possession of Shop No.11. However, in the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1, it has been mentioned that he has given Shop No.8 to the present applicant. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant intervenes and submits that, it is mentioned by respondent No.1 that, he has given Shop No.10. However, by mistake Shop No. 8 is written in Para-3 of the application for condonation of delay. It is the contention of the applicant in the application that, he is in possession of Shop No. 11 since 1983. But, since there was ambiguity in the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 itself 4 ca9865.11 and therefore, the applicant was under impression that, he need not to file any proceeding challenging the judgment and order passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed in Rent Appeal No. 1 of 2002 dated 26-09-2008. Other contentions are also taken in Paragraphs-4 and 5. In Para-5, there is mention about other pending Civil Revision Application before this Court and about long standing possession of the applicant in the suit premises. In Para-6, the statement is made that by the impugned order dated 26-09-2008 passed by the Principal District, Beed has directed to deposit the arrears of rent from 01-11-1988 and the applicant is ready to deposit the same before this Court. Other contents also taken in the application. 3. Ignorance is pleaded by the applicant that, he need not challenge the judgment and order passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed in Rent Appeal No. 1 of 2002 dated 26-09-2008 though suit premises i.e. Shop No.11 is covered by the 5 ca9865.11 said judgment, cannot be accepted. It is also admitted position that, in pursuant to the directions given by the Principal District Judge, Beed in Rent Appeal No. 1 of 2002 on 26-09-2008, the applicant herein has not deposited the rent. There is inordinate delay of 971 days in filing the Civil Revision Application. No sufficient cause has been shown in the application. Apart from that, the applicant himself has stated that, no rent is deposited as directed by the District Judge, Beed in the judgment and order impugned in this Civil Revision Application. 4. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, in absence of sufficient cause shown in the application for condonation of delay, Civil Application cannot be entertained. Hence, the Civil Application for condonation of delay stands rejected. 5. In the light of rejection of the Civil Application for condonation of delay in filing the 6 ca9865.11 Civil Revision Application, Civil Revision Application does not survive and hence, its registration stands refused. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11