1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3360 OF 2010 Mr. Sidney Peter Lobo. .. Petitioner Vs Mr. Salim Ahmed Siddiqui & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Denzil D’Mello for the Petitioner. Shri A.R. Pandey for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff. A decree for eviction has been passed in favour of the Petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. An appeal has been preferred against the said decree by the Respondents. While granting stay to the execution of the decree, the Appellate Court imposed a condition of deposit of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Respondents could not comply with the said order. Therefore, an application was made by the Respondents for seeking extension of time to deposit arrears of compensation. By the impugned order, the delay in depositing the amount has been condoned and it is directed that the order of stay granted under the earlier order dated 12th 2 October, 2009 will continue to operate subject to compliance of conditions incorporated therein. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the gross delay on the part of the Respondents in depositing the amount could not have been condoned. He submitted that the Appellate Court could not have condoned such a long delay. He submitted that the Petitioner is a senior citizen and, therefore, a time bound schedule be fixed for hearing of the appeal. 3. I have considered the submissions. The order of stay was passed on 12th October, 2009 directing the Respondents to deposit compensation amount at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of decree till the end of October, 2009 within a period of 30 days i.e. on or before 11th November, 2009. By the impugned order, time to deposit arrears has been extended. In the impugned order, it is noted that on 25th February, 2010 the entire arrears have been deposited by the Respondents. The delay has been condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. This is not a case where interference can be made in exercise of powers of superintendence. 4. The Petitioner is stated to a senior citizen. Hearing of the appeal has already been expedited. 3 5. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) the Writ Petition is rejected. (b) The Appellate Court will endeavour to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st March, 2011. (A.S.OKA, J)