1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3049 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3050 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3051 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 772 OF 2006 Dr.Devidas Nanasaheb Bhalerao, proposed legal representative of Shri Nana Ramchandra Bhalerao. .. Applicant Vs Shri Arun Vasudeo Mahajani & Anr. .. Respondents -- Ms Tanmayi Gadve i/by Shri Nitin P. Deshpande for the Applicant. Shri S.N. Chandrachud for the Respondent. -- CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. These Applications have been filed in a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner/tenant for challenging a decree for eviction. The Writ Petition has been admitted and the decree for possession has been stayed. The Petitioner-Tenant expired on 16th November, 2008. As his heirs did not apply for bringing their names on record within the stipulated time of 90 days, the Writ Petition has been dismissed. The Civil Application No.3051 of 2009 has been filed for condonation of delay in bringing on record the Applicant as the legal representative of 2 the deceased Petitioner. The said Application has been filed on 30th November, 2009. The Civil Application No. 3050 of 2009 has been filed for brining the name of the Applicant on record of the deceased Petitioner and Civil Application No.3049 of 2009 is for restoration of the Writ Petition. Opposition to these applications by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-landlords is on the ground that the Applicant was not carrying on business along with the deceased Petitioner-tenant on the date of his death and, therefore, the Applicant cannot be said to be a tenant. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, however, does not dispute that the Applicant is a heir of the deceased tenant-Petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent states that the Applicant is not interested in retaining the possession of the suit premises and he has almost vacated the suit premises. 4. Suffice it to say that the averments made in the Civil Application No.3051 of 2009 sufficiently explain the delay on the part of the Applicant in approaching this Court. Therefore, the Civil Applications will have to be allowed and the Writ Petition will have to be restored. Even interim relief will have to be restored. If the death of the Original Petitioner has brought about any change in the circumstances, it is always open for the Respondent to 3 apply for vacating the stay on the said ground. 5. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) Civil Application No.3051 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (b) Civil Application No.3050 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (c) Civil Application No.3049 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (d) As observed earlier, it will be open for the Respondent to apply for vacating the interim relief on the ground of change in the circumstances. (e) The Writ Petition be added to the final hearing board of 22nd February, 2010. JUDGE