FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3328/2008 ______________________________________________________________________ ________ Office Notes,Office Memoranda Court's Judge's Orders of Coram ,appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders None for petitioner Ms.Kavita Pawar i/bSanjay Kshirsagar for the respondent Coram : Anoop V.Mohta,J. Date : 16th October,2008. P.C. 1] The petitioner has challenged the order whereby his application for leave to defend and to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to defend as contemplated u/s 43(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (M.R.C.Act),1999 is rejected .The mandate of said section has already been reiterated by the Supreme Court in (Prakash H.Jain Vs.Marie Fernandes),2004(2)Bom.C.R.592 by observing as under. ''Aggrieved respondent approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.1575 of 2002 challenging the order condoning the delay and the subsequent order also granting leave to defend .The learned Single Judge, as noticed earlier,set aside the orders passed by 2 the Competent Authority ,both in respect of condonation of the delay and the leave granted to defend the proceedings as a consequence thereof,on the view that there is no provision in the Act or any other law which vests power in the Competent Authority to condone the delay in filing such a belated application.Consequently,the Competent Authority was directed to pass further orders on the application of the respondent filed for eviction of the appellant, in accordance with law''. 2] In view of above there is no provision and authority to condone such delay after expiry of stipulated period as explained above. The Competent Authority in view of this rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and leave to defend as prayed in view of the mandate of the section as well as the decision of the Supreme Court . 3] The petition was adjourned from time to time to make submissions upon any other judgment of the Supreme court ,but in vain. Any how, as there is no substance in the petition , it is dismissed. (Anoop V.Mohta,J.)