:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 4 OF 2011 1. Radha Nandalal Kalro, nee Smita R. Paigankar, major in age, E-3, Anant Vishwa, Vidhyanagar, Margao Goa. 2. Nandalal Kalro, major in age, E-3, Anant Vishwa, Vidhyanagar, Margao Goa. 3. Sujata S. Korgaonkar, major in age, and her husband 4. Sharad T. Korgaonkar, major in age, Both residents of Damodar Bhavan, Chittaranjan Road, ville Parle (East), Mumbai ( State of Maharashtra ), 5. Savita B. Gianani, major of age, and her husband, 6. Bhisham Gianani, Major of age, Both residents of Damodar Housing Society, Aquem-Alto, Margao Goa. … Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Damodar Narcinva Naik, major of age, businessman, c/o N. D. Naik, V. N. Naik Road, Arlem, Margao Goa 403 602. 2. Rohit R. Paigankar, major in age, House No.442, Opposite Pearless Office, Cine Vishant Road, Aquem-Alto, Margao Goa. :2: 3. Nutan R. Paigankar, major in age, House No.442, opposite Pearless Office, Cine Vishant Road, Aquem-Alto, Margao Goa. 4. Rajesh R. Paigankar major in age, House No.442, opposite Pearless Office, Cine Vishant Road, Aquem-Alto, Margao Goa. 5. Pratibha R. Paigankar, major in age, House No.442, opposite Pearless Office, Cine Vishant Road, Aquem-Alto, Margao Goa. … Respondents Mr. C. Mascarenhas, Advocate for petitioners. Ms. S. Chodankar, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE,J DATE : 10 th JUNE, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, dismissing the petitioners' application for condonation of delay. The petitioners are the :3: tenants whose appeal against the order of eviction was delayed. They, therefore, have filed an application for condonation of delay of about six months. The Tribunal has dismissed the said application for condonation of delay. 3. Mr. Mascarenhas, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the delay was due to the fact that though the petitioners were served in the proceedings for eviction, they were not informed about the passing of the judgment by their brothers who were attending to the case. This position is not seriously disputed on behalf of respondent no.1 - landlord before this Court. In fact having regard to the circumstances of the case, respondent no.1- landlord has no objection to the condonation of delay in case the appeal is expeditiously heard on merits by the Tribunal. The other respondents are not contesting this petition. 4. In the circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order and allow the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a decision of the appeal on merits. :4: 5. The Tribunal shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20th June, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE, J at*