1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5208 of 2009 PETITIONER : Krupashankar Umaji Shirke, Aged about 60 years, Occu.: Business, R/o New Calcutta Dresses, Tinnal Chowk, Nagpur. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1] Sureshkumar s/o Ramnarayan Jaiswal, Aged Major, Occu.: Business, R/o Tinnal Chowk, Nagpur. 2] Collector, Nagpur with Rent Control Appellate Power in Revenue Appeal No. 86/2001. 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 18, 2010. Heard finally learned Advocate Mr. S.D.Deshpande for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. A.P.Kalmegh for respondents. The writ petition is by the tenant challenging the order of appellate authority refusing to interfere in appeal with the order passed by the Rent Controller whereby the Rent Controller has refused to set aside ex- parte order granting permission to respondent/landlord. While dismissing application of the petitioner/ tenant for setting aside ex-parte order dated 14/9/1994, the Rent Controller in his order dated 13.4.2000 has found that the tenant alleged to have obtained knowledge of ex- parte order only after receipt of notice dated 21.6.1996 2 from the Advocate of landlord. He then got certified copy of the order and filed the application for setting aside ex- parte order with contention that his Advocate did not intimate him the relevant dates or requirement of his presence. The Rent Controller found that written statement was filed before it on 02.1.1989 in the main matter. The tenant participated in original proceedings and then remained absent. In view of this, it refused to interfere. The appeal against this order dated 13.4.2000 has been filed on 19.3.2001. Perusal of appellate order shows that the tenant had applied for certified copy of order dated 13.4.2000 on 20.4.2000 and he was told to appear on 28.4.2000. But then, he appeared on 12.3.2001, collected the certified copy and filed appeal on 19.3.2001. This appeal was filed practically after 11 months from the date of order of Rent Controller. The explanation tendered by the learned counsel for petitioner/tenant before this Court is his counsel did not collect copy of the order of Rent Controller. Learned Advocate Mr. A.P.Kalmegh has opposed the petition and he has pointed out that the petitioner/ tenant is guilty of latches and negligence in the matter. It is apparent that petitioner/tenant has not shown his bona fides at all and he has been blaming his Advocate for the alleged lapses. After getting knowledge of first lapse on the part of said Advocate, he could have taken precaution to see that appeal is filed within time, but he has again chosen to depend upon his Advocate. The 3 name of the Advocate is not mentioned. Before this Court, one of the arguments of the learned Advocate is now the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are in operation and hence, respondent/landlord can file suit directly by giving up the rent control proceedings. The rent control proceedings are initiated by the respondent/ landlord way back in 1988-89. The petitioner has not taken any action against his so called Advocate in the matter. I am, therefore, not satisfied with the bona fides of the petitioner. The authorities below have rightly applied their mind. In the circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale