1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIIVIL APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST.NO.26124 OF 2008 Jooman Rajoo (Now deceased) 1. Karam Hussain & ors. : Applicants. Versus Sayed Mehmood Hussein : Respondent. Shri R S Tripathi for the Applicants. Shri Suresh Gole for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : MARCH 25, 2009 P.C. 1. By the above Civil Application, the Applicant prays for condonation of delay of 3 years and 341 days in filing the above Civil Revision Application. 2. The Applicant is the original Plaintiff who had filed RAD Suit 2 No.1490 of 1984 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay. The original Plaintiff was carrying on business of coal and also residing at Shop No.47, Plot No.65, situated at Tulsiwadi, Gun Power Road, Mazgaon Bombay. The original Defendant Shri Sayed Gulam Hussain Sayed Tejumal Hussain was the tenant who gave the suit premises to the Original Plaintiff allegedly on leave and license basis in the year 1962. Since the Defendant threatened to dispossess the Applicant that the said RAD Suit came to be filed by him. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2002 and a declaration was issued that the Applicant was a protected/deemed tenant in respect of the suit premises. Aggrieved by the said decree passed by the trial Court, the Defendant landlord preferred and Appeal bearing No.627 of 2002. The said Appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by its Judgment and Order dated 19.8.2004 on the ground that the alleged agreement was a hire agreement and, therefore, the Applicant could not get the protection. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 19.8.2004, the 3 Applicant filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.9993 of 2004. On account of the death of the original Plaintiff his heirs were brought on record in the said Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition ultimately was allowed to be withdrawn on 10.8.2007 with liberty to file a Civil Revision Application. The present Civil Revision Application is filed on 5.11.2008. 4. It is the case of the Applicants that the period spent in prosecuting the said Writ Petition No.9993 of 2004 would have to be excluded in computing the delay and if the said period is excluded, then delay is only about one year and three months. It is further the case of the Applicants that they are from the lower strata of society and are not having the wherewithal to file the proceedings and only after they had made financial arrangements that they could file the above Civil Revision Application. It is further the case of the Applicant that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the delay is required to be condoned. 5. On behalf of the Respondent an Affidavit in Reply has been 4 filed in the above Civil Application by which the prayer for condonation of delay has been opposed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, as mentioned herein above, the Applicants had filed Writ Petition No.9993 of 2004 challenging the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, dated 19.8.2004 and in view of the pronouncement of a learned Single Judge of this Court the said Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file Civil Revision Application. The said Writ Petition came to be withdrawn on 10.8.2007. The instant Civil Revision Application has been filed on 5.11.2008. Though no justifiable reasons have been mentioned for the said period of one year and three months i.e between the date of withdrawal of the Writ Petition No.9993 of 2004 and the date of filing of the instant Civil Revision Application, in view of the fact that the Applicants were bonafide prosecuting the said Writ Petition which ultimately came to be withdrawn by them on 10.8.2007. It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Apex Court that in matters of condonation of delay a highly technical and pedantic 5 approach should be avoided and an approach which furthers the cause of justice should be followed. 7. In my view, the Applicants are required to be given one last indulgence. The suit premises are the premises admeasuring 9 sq.ft x 8 sq.ft wherein the Applicants are carrying out their business. The interest of justice therefore requires that the delay in filing the above Civil Revision Application be condoned. However, the same would be required to be done on certain terms. 8. The above Civil Application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 9. The Applicants to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the Respondent herein within four weeks from date. Only on such costs being paid and the evidence of having paid the said costs produced by the Applicants that the office would number the above Civil Revision Application. In the event the said costs are not paid, the instant order would not enure to the benefit of the Applicants and 6 resultantly, the above Civil Application would stand dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]