1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5027 of 2007 Dinesh Motisa Deshmukh ..vs.. Niranjan Mohanlal Bhatt & anor. __________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mrs. M. D. Awachat, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. S. Murthy, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 08/04/2008. 1. Heard Mrs. Awachat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. S. Murthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges legality and propriety of the impugned order, which was passed on 12/4/2001 by the lower Appellate Court Judge, thereby rejecting application for condonation of 82 days delay in filing Regular Civil Appeal. 3. The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent No.1 is the Landlord. The respondent No.1 filed proceedings before the Rent Controller for permission to evict the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. The Rent Controller granted permission and in pursuance of this, respondent No.1 filed suit for possession. The suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 28.1.2000. The petitioner filed appeal, 2 however, there was delay of 82 days in filing appeal and therefore, Misc. Civil Application bearing No. 451/2000 came to be filed for condonation of delay. This application was rejected by lower Appellate Court on 12/4/2001. The petitioner thereafter preferred Civil Revision Application. The same was held not to be maintainable and thereafter the petitioner has filed present petition. 4. The petitioner claimed that eviction decree dated 28/1/2000 is ex-parte decree and, therefore, filed separate proceedings for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 28/1/2000. That application was rejected by trial Court and thereafter appeal was also dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents makes a statement that in the meanwhile trial Court's eviction decree dated 28/1/2000 was executed by filing execution proceedings. The possession of suit premises was already taken. He further stated that after taking possession, the respondent has demolished the suit premises and the open plot is also transferred to 3rd person. 6. In view of above statements, the suit premises itself is not in existence. The learned Judge of Lower Appellate Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting petitioner's application for condonation 3 of delay. I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order. 7. In the backdrop mentioned above, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of my jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Jsa.