1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LPA No. 280 of 2011 Ramesh v. Gopal and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S. V. Purohit, Adv for appellant Mr B. G. Kulkarni, Adv for respondents Coram: B.P. Dharmadhikari and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated: 23rd November 2011 1. Heard respective counsel. Petitioner-tenant had filed an appeal under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act before the District Court. As that appeal was belated, prayer for condonation was made. However, the District Court did not find sufficient ground to condone delay. The said order was questioned before the learned single Judge of this Court and by impugned order dated 29.4.2011 the learned single has refused to interfere. 2. On earlier occasion, the matter was adjourned as some efforts to settle the controversy amicably were going on. However, today both the counsel report that there is no such possibility. 3. Mr B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for 2 landlord has pointed out that the appellate court which has passed the impugned order was not party before the learned single Judge and there was no prayer to issue any writ though Article 226 of the Constitution of India was mentioned in the cause title. According to Mr Kulkarni, mention of Article 226 in the cause title alone was not sufficient and hence, appeal is liable to dismissed. 3. The position is settled by the decisions of Honourable Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court. In the light of judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the cases of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue & anr reported at AIR 1963 SC 786; Muhammed Enamul Haque vs. Muhammad Hussain reported at 1968 Mh.L.J. 1; Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported at (2010) 8 SCC 329 as also Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari & ors v. Vishwanath Champat Naik & anr reported at 2011 (5) Mh.L.J. 193, we dispose of the present appeal with liberty to the appellant to take steps as are open to it in law. Judge. Judge joshi