 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 908/2009 M/s. Jejani Paper Mart & ors. ..vs.. Pandurang M. Bind (Dead) thr. LRs. Shri Diwakar P. Bind and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. Shelat, Advocate for petitioners. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 30 th MARCH, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are tenants and original non applicants in Revenue Appeal No. 7/A-71(2)/08-09. The respondents are legal heirs of original landlord deceased Pandurang Bind. An application was filed before the Rent Controller by the landlord seeking permission to issue quit notice to the present petitioners on several grounds including bona fide need. That application came to be rejected on 11.07.2006. As per the provisions of law, appeal could be preferred against that order within 15 days from the date of communication of the order. On 10.08.2006, the respondents filed an appeal before the appellate Authority with an application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. It was contended that respondent no. 1 Diwakar, who had sworn in the application and the appeal, was suffering from Chikungunya and, therefore, he was unable to contact the lawyer and give him instructions. In view of this  reason, by the impugned order dated 23.01.2009, the Additional Collector condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 3. It is now well settled that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable and if there are good reasons, the appellate Authority may condone the delay in filing the appeal. One of the appellants, who had sworn in and affirmed the appeal as well as application for condonation of delay, has specifically stated that he was suffering from Chikungunya and, therefore, he was unable to contact the counsel to prepare and file appeal and this ground was accepted as bona fide reason by appellate Authority. A judicial note of this fact can be taken that during the year 2006, most of the part of India, including Maharashtra and particularly Vidarbha and Marathwada regions were reeling under Chikungunya and large number of people in the country were down with that ailment. There is no reason to disbelieve the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to disagree with the appellate Authority that delay of 13 days deserves to be condoned. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. JUDGE kahale