1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.624 OF 2008 Pundalik P. Acharya ...Applicant. v. Jaywant K. Arurkar & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.N.Dinkar Rao, adv. For the Applicant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 7, 2010 P.C. 1 In spite of the service of notice indicating that the revision application may be disposed off finally at the admission stage , none appears for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who is the original defendant no.1. 2 Respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff and the landlord and the defendant no.1 is the tenant in the suit premises. Plaintiff filed suit for eviction and possession on the ground that defendant no.1 had sublet the premises to the defendant no.2 without his permission. The suit was contested. The trial Court decreed the suit against the defendant no.1 on two grounds; Firstly that he had denied the title of the landlord and secondly, that he had sublet the premises to the defendant no.2. However, the suit against the defendant no.2 came to be dismissed on 2 the ground that he was not in possession. The defendant no.1 sought to file an appeal with Misc. Application No.85/08 for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. According to him, when the suit was dismissed against the defendant no.2, who was said to be sub-tenant, the defendant no.1 was under the impression that the suit must have been dismissed in its entirety but then he learnt that suit was decreed against him on the ground that he has sub-let the premises to the defendant no.2 though it was dismissed against the defendant no.2 on the ground that he was not in possession. Appellate Court rejected the application for condonation of delay. Hence, this Revision Application. 3 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the decree passed by the trial Court, in my considered opinion, the appellate Court should not have been so technical about the delay and in the interest of justice, delay should have been condoned. The contention of the defendant no.1/applicant could be accepted that prima-facie the decree passed by the trial Court was self conflicting. On the one hand, the trial Court came to conclusion that the defendant no.2 was not in possession and on the other hand, decree was passed for subletting the premises to the defendant no.2. 4 Taking into consideration the above circumstances, 3 Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Miscellaneous Application No.85/08 is allowed and the delay is condoned. The First Appellate Court shall register the appeal stamp no. 497/08 and shall hear and dispose off the same as per law. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)