1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2009 1. Maria Claudina D'Souza, r/o Xettiavaddo, Dular Mapusa Bardez Goa, ( since deceased ) Legal representatives : i) Mrs. Rosy Pannu, r/o Bombay, represented by Power of Attorney namely Petitioner no.1(ii). ii)Mr. Benjamin D'Souza, r/o Xettiavaddo, Duler, Mapusa. 2. Miss. Ida D'Souza ( deceased ) ... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Shri Sayed Amanullah, r/o Xettiavaddo, Duler, Mapusa. ( Since deceased ) Legal representatives: i) Shri Sayed Saeed ii)Shri Sayed Child Both r/o Duler, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. 2. Rent Controller, Mapusa Sub-Division Mapusa, having office at Mapusa. 3. Administrative Tribunal, Panaji Goa. ... Respondents Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. Phadte, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for the Respondent no.1. at* 2 Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 24 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. This petition is arising out of order dated 4.8.2008 passed by Administrative Tribunal of Goa, in Misc. Application No. 74/2003/ in Eviction Appeal (Un-Reg.). 3. The Tribunal has dismissed the application for condonation of delay in appeal on the ground of failure to take steps i.e. in default. 4. Heard parties. 5. The application is very strongly opposed by the respondents. 6. Learned Advocate for the respondents has tendered for perusal of the Court copy of proceedings sheet commencing from 5th March, 2003 till date of dismissal. 7. Perusal of roznama reveals that the petitioner was present on first three dates and thereafter petitioner's Advocate was present. On 14.3.2008 again the petitioner was present. Except roznama dated 2.6.2008, it is not mentioned even on any one date 3 that the case was fixed for taking steps, and for the first time it is recorded in roznama dated 2.6.2008 that the respondents were not served. 8. It reveals from roznama dated 4.8.2008 that as the steps were not taken, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed. 9. It is thus clear from the record that the petitioner and petitioner's Advocate were under impression that the Registry of Tribunal was going to take steps. Moreover the petitioner has offered explanation that due to old age and communication gap the steps could not be taken in time. 10. The explanation offered by the petitioner is reasonable and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to grant to the petitioner further opportunity. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds. Petitioner however is liable to pay cost of Rs. 500/- to the respondents. The impugned order is set aside. MCA No. 74/2003 for condonation of delay caused in filing of appeal is restored. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16th November, 2009 without further notice of application for condonation of delay. On said date fixed for appearance the petitioner shall deposit the cost of Rs. 500/- in the Tribunal and the respondents are permitted to withdraw the same unconditionally. The deposit of cost 4 shall condition precedent. If costs are not deposited, the application shall not be restored and will be treated as dismissed. 13. Rule is made absolute in above terms. A. H. JOSHI, J. at*