1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9370 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr.Vishal Kanade with M.S.Dehlvi i/v Gyani and Dehlvi for the petitioner. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/11/2009 PC: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, allowing the application for condonation of 51 days delay in preferring Appeal No.91 of 2008 filed by the respondents. The Tribunal, while condoning the delay in paragraph 3, has observed thus; “Another ground put forth for condonation of delay is illness of one of the applicant. In support medical T 2 certificate is produced on record. It discloses name of one Rama Wadakar suffering from fracture of right femeer. Applicant contended in the application that applicant's relative was bed redden and applicant was also having knee problem. In support medical certificate of relative is produced on record. No doubt the certificate does not relate to any one of the applicant. It may be fact that applicant may have been engaged to take care of relatives. It is contended that applicant asked her brother to approach the advocate and file appeal but it was informed that the Tribunal was not functioning so appeal could not be filed in time. It is a fact that Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was abolished and powers were given to Commissioner. But from May 2007 Commissioner also had no power as government gave undertaking to Hon'ble Supreme Court for reconstitution of M.R.T and withdrawn S.L.P M.R.T was reconstituted and actually started functioning from February 2008. Thereafter this appeal is preferred in March, 2008. Non functioning of M.R.T is a sufficient case as appellant cannot be blamed for this cause. It is not found to be a case of negligence. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Collector Anantnagh vs m/s Katagee reported in AIR 1989 2008 SC 1353, the application for condonation of delay needs to be considered liberally to advance substantial justice on merit instead of refusing the same on Technical grounds. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court this is found to be a fit case to condone delay as the cause shown in this case to condone delay is not deliberate; hence needs to be condoned delay by allowing the application.” 3 Having considered the reasons recorded by the Tribunal for condoning 51 days delay in filing the tenancy appeal, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in view of overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Maharahstra Revenue Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the Appeal bearing Tenancy Appeal No.91 of 2008 expeditiously. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)