1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CAZ No.825/2011 in LPA St. No. 20023/2011 in WP No. 2760/2011 Sunil s/o Ratanchand Jain Vs. Anil Damodhar Rokde and another. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. H. R. Gadhia, Advocate for the applicant. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ DATED : 29th NOVEMBER, 2011. Prayer is to condone delay of 55 days in filing LPA. In LPA challenge is to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 18.8.2011 maintaining findings of the Appellate Court functioning under Maharashtra Rent Control Act on bonafide need, as also on the ground of arrears in favour of respondent-landlord. The Trial Court also had earlier granted decree of eviction in favour of respondent on the ground of bonafide need. Petition filed was only under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In petition in prayer clause ((B) appropriate writ was sought for and in paragraph 11 it was stated that extraordinary jurisdiction is being invoked. However, after hearing learned counsel, we are satisfied that a grievance of purely private and civil nature was only involved in said petition. We, therefore, find that controversy is squarely 2 covered by judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shalini Sham Shetty and anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (7) Scale 428. The LPA is therefore misconceived. hence, there is no question of allowing application for condonation of delay. Hence, application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.