-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6812 OF 2009 Smt. Rukmini V. Mhatre & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus Mr. Mahendrakumar Hastimal Punamiya & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Ajit Salvi for the Petitioners. Mr. V. S. Talkute for the respondents. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 22, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By the impugned order the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay of approximately of 5 years occurred in filing Tenancy Revision Appeal No. 102/B/2007 is rejected. By the order dated 14th February 1986 the petitioner obtained ex- parte order under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, from the Tehsildar and got declared himself as tenant of the suit land. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before the SDO. This appeal was allowed by the order dated 2nd March 1996. It is recorded in this order that the petitioner could not file any evidence like rent receipt, Kabulayatnama, etc. to prove his tenancy. The respondent thereafter preferred revision before the MRT and the matter was remanded back to the SDO. The SDO by his order dated 21st September 2002 after hearing both -: 2 :- sides confirmed its earlier order dated 2nd March 1996. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before the MRT in the month of July 2007 with an application for condonation of delay. The ground pressed into service in the said application for condonation of delay is that for the first time in the year 2007 the petitioner came to know about the SDO’s order dated 21st September 2002. However, at the time of argument before the MRT it was argued that there was some communication gap between the petitioner and her lawyer. Learned Member of MRT considered both the grounds and held that no case is made out for condonation of delay. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner participated in the hearing before the SDO. The petitioner was also Representative by a lawyer - Shri. Mhaskar. I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that she came to know about the order impugned in the revision for the first time in the year 2007 inasmuch as the mutation entry in respect of the suit property in favour of the respondent was recorded as long as back in the year 1996. Exhibit 4 (page 56) annexed to the reply of the respondent is copy of the intimation received by the respondent regarding the decision of SDO dated 21st September 2002. If the respondent has received the intimation of decision, it can be presumed that the petitioner also must have received that intimation. Learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal after going through the material on record recorded a finding that the satisfactory explanation is not given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. I do not find any error in the said finding so as to -: 3 :- enable me to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)