1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 664/2010. Govindlal M. Shahu (dead) through L.Rs.… versus … Badriprasad Murlidhar Jais Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2010. Heard Shri S. Ghate, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri M.P. Lala, learned counsel for respondent. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.07.2002 passed by Rent Controller, Nagpur and the subsequent order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur in appeal rejecting his challenge to that order. By order dated 20.07.2002, the respondent landlord has been permitted to terminate tenancy of petitioners under the provisions of Clause 13[3][vi] of the Rent Control Order, i.e. bonafide need. Before the Appellate Authority the petitioner has attempted to show that his defence was not properly looked after before the Rent Controller, as his Advocate had expired and though his son had assured to look into the matter, the Advocate's son never appeared before the Rent Controller. Before this Court the same defence has been adopted by the petitioner to assail order of Rent Controller. 2 Shri Lala, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand has pointed out that Vakalatnama of said Advocate son was never filed on record and along with deceased Advocate, Advocate Shri Dabir was appearing in the matter and Advocate Shri Dabir appeared on certain dates after death of Advocate P.M. Sontakke. He therefore contends that the appellate Authority has rightly found that lame excuse was being pressed into service by petitioners/ tenant to delay the disposal of the matter. It is to be noted that after the Rent Control Authority granted permission, a civil suit was also filed by the respondent / landlord on the strength of that permission and decree for eviction of petitioner has also been passed. Its execution is kept in abeyance as it at the relevant time appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was pending. The said appeal was filed in the year 2002-03 and is decided on 30.11.2009. Even after decision of the said appeal, in present Writ Petition the petitioners have not pointed out that petitioners have/had retained son of deceased Advocate P.M. Sontakke, as their Advocate to look into the Rent Control matter. They have not explained as to how and in what capacity Shri Dabir, appeared before the Rent Controller after death of Shri Sontakke. It is to be noted that Vakalatnama of Shri Dabir on behalf of petitioners was already filed. Shri Ghate, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1981 SC 1401 (Lajpat Rai and others .vrs. State of Punjab and others) and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2003 [3] Mh.L.J. 1003 (Ashok Raviji 3 Vadodriya .vrs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay). However, facts here clearly show that petitioners have not established that they had retained son of the deceased Advocate to look after their interest in the matter, hence both the rulings are not applicable in the present matter. In view of the above, I find that no case is made out warranting interference in the matter. Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.