1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6814 OF 2010 Mrs. Aruna Madhukar Kothule. .. Petitioner Vs Smt. Shashikala Trimbak. .. Respondent -- Shri Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Shri Sanjay Kshirsagar for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. This writ petition arises out of an order passed on an application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ). The Respondent is the landlord who made an application before the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the said Act by contending that the Petitioner was inducted in the suit premises on the basis of a leave and licence agreement dated 1st June, 2004. The licence expired on 30th April, 2005. As the Petitioner did not vacate the suit premises, an application under Section 24 of the said Act for eviction was filed. 2 3. Notice of the application was served to the Petitioner. Within the time stipulated by Section 43 of the said Act, the Petitioner could not apply for grant of leave to defend the application for eviction. Therefore, an application for condonation of delay was made by the Petitioner. It has been rejected by an order dated 11th January, 2008 on the ground that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The said order has been confirmed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The order was confirmed in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes, [ 2004(2) Bom. C.R. 592 ] which holds that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 were not applicable to the proceedings before the Competent Authority and the competent Authority is powerless to extend the time of 30 days provided under Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the said Act. The Competent Authority has proceeded to pass an order of eviction and directed the Petitioner to pay damages. A revision application preferred by the Petitioner before the Commissioner has been rejected. 4. After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it is difficult to find fault with the impugned orders. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not apply within a period of 30 days by filing an affidavit seeking leave to contest the eviction application. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Jain (supra), time of 30 days cannot be extended. The Petitioner was desirous of defending the application for eviction on various grounds including the 3 ground that the leave and licence agreement has not been signed. 5. In view of the mandate of law, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned orders. Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 43 provides that if an application for leave to defend is not made within the stipulated time, the statements made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the licensee and the landlord shall be entitled to an order of eviction. 6. Hence, in the present case, the order of eviction must follow. No interference is called for with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. The Petition is rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays for continuation of ad-interim relief granted on 30th August, 2010. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the ad-interim relief granted on 30th August, 2010 will continue to operate for a period of 12 weeks from today subject to condition that the Petitioner will not create any third party interests and will not part with possession of the suit premises. (A.S.OKA, J)