1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O.NO. 1064/2009 AND M.C.A.ST.ST.NO. 17318/2009 IN W.P.NO. 284/1995. Dilipkumar Keshrimal Agrawal -: versus :- Mohini Purushottam Gahiot and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 03, 2010. I have heard Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned counsel for applicant, Shri M.D. Lakhey, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 5 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.6. Review sought is of judgment dated 23.02.2007 and there during the course of dictation of judgment learned Counsel for respondents/landlord then appearing made a statement that the landlord was not interested in pressing the permission granted by the Rent Controller in view of denial of his title by tenant [petitioner] and subsequent forfeiture. Thus, the petition which was likely to be dismissed was therefore disposed of as infructuous. Thereafter by changing Counsel present application for condonation of delay along with application for review has been made. Learned counsel states that as per instructions of client and local Advocate Shri Luley of Wardha, the counsel then representing the review applicant [landlord] made that statement before this Court without any instructions. However, learned counsel is not in a position to explain the 2 circumstances in which statement came to be made. It is an admitted position that neither the review applicant nor Advocate Shri Luley, were present before the Court at the time of hearing or at the time of dictation of the judgment. In this background, Shri Lakhey, learned counsel strongly opposes the condonation of delay and the review application. Learned A.G.P. is supporting the arguments made by Shri Lakhey, learned counsel. Shri Sohoni, learned counsel however upon instructions states that though this Court has recorded forfeiture of tenancy and denial of title permission to file fresh suit on that basis is not granted. He therefore is seeking review. Shri Lakhey, learned counsel opposes the request. It is apparent that denial of title and consequent forfeiture are subsequent causes which do not have any bearing on Rent Control permission. The judgment delivered by this Court on 23.02.2007 in Writ Petition does not in any way eclipse that cause of action. If such cause of action is available, the review applicant/landlord is free to take recourse to appropriate suit in the matter. No direction from this Court for that purpose is necessary. I, therefore find that no case is made out even for condonation of delay or for review. Applications are therefore, rejected with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.