1 WP 5337/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5337 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. J.D. Khairnar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 8 September 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, confirming an order for eviction passed by the Competent Authority under section 43 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 3. The respondent is the licensor and the petitioner is a licensee in respect of the suit 2 WP 5337/10 premises. Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent does not admit their relationship. The respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on expiry of the period of license. After service of writ of summons, the petitioner did not file any application for leave to defend or written statement or any other defence before the Competent Authority within 30 days. However, after expiry of about 45 days, the petitioner applied for condonation of delay in making the application for leave to defend. That application was rejected and consequently the Competent Authority proceeded with the hearing without any defence of the petitioner. On the basis of the material available before the Competent Authority, it passed an order for eviction. That order has been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner in revision. Aggrieved petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 WP 5337/10 submitted that the delay in filing of the application for leave to defend ought to have been condoned and since it was not condoned, injustice has been caused to the petitioner and all the orders need to be set aside. 5. In Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes, air 2003 SC 4591, the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable in respect of an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for leave to defend and the Competent Authority has no power to condone the delay. In view of this decision, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected. The petitioner is however granted 8 weeks’ time to vacate. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)