1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3381 OF 2009 Chandrashekhar M. Chavan .. Petitioner Versus Ramesh Sudam Karanjawkar .. Respondent Mr.Shashank Mangle for the petitioner. Ms.Manjiri S. Kulkarni for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and advocate for the respondent. The respondent plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner did not appear in the suit and failed to file written statement. On 01st January 2008 the suit was decreed and decree for possession was passed against the petitioner. On 03rd March 2008 an appeal was preferred by the petitioner alongwith application for condonation of delay. The delay in preferring an appeal was of 32 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it was stated that father of the petitioner who was the original defendant died during pendnecy of the suit. It is stated that due to old age the petitioner s father 2 could not file written statement. It is stated that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and therefore he could not appear in the suit. The application for condonation of delay has been rejected by the impugned order. The learned Principal District Judge held that the certificate produced on record showed that the petitioner had undergone heart surgery in January 2005 and thereafter in August 2005 the petitioner appeared in the suit through his advocate. The second reason given is that the application for obtaining certified copies was made after stipulated period of limitation of 30 days. The third reason which is given is that considering the merits of the matter, the petitioner has no chances of succeeding in appeal. The third reason was obviously irrelevant in so far as prayer for condonation of delay is concerned. 2. The opposition of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in this petition is that on the basis of certificate produced before the District Court the delay could not have been condoned as the said certificate shows that heart surgery was performed in January 2005. Her submission is that the petitioner has been negligent and if delay is condoned, serious prejudice will be caused to the 3 respondent who has been prosecuting the suit from the year 2002. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on certificate dated 28th February 2009 which records that the petitioner was under treatment from 01st January 2008 to 31st March 2008. 3. In the present case, decree has been passed by the trial Court on 01st January 2008. Appeal was preferred on 03rd March 2008 alongwith application for condonation of delay. The decree is of possession under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. While deciding an application for condonation of delay, liberal and justice oriented approach is contemplated. Considering the length of delay, the learned Judge ought to have condoned the delay. The prejudice which may be caused to the respondent could have been taken care of by awarding costs. The amount of costs in the present case is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned judgment and order dated 05th January 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) Civil Misc.Application No.14 of 2008 filed 4 by the petitioner is allowed and delay in preferring an appeal is condoned subject to petitioner paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. (c) Payment of costs will be condition precedent. Deposit of the amount of costs with the District Court within stipulated time will be treated as sufficient compliance. If compliance is made, appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be expeditiously decided. (d) The appeal shall be decided within a period of six months from the date on which the same is registered. (e) The writ petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)