1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2009 Homi Framroze Mehta & ors ..Applicants V/s The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. ..Respondents Mr.Shyam Mehta Walter & Sangram i/b.Ms.Madhavi Tavanandi, Advocate, for the applicants Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. . By the above Civil Application, the applicant prays for condonation of delay of 97 days (as per the office note) in filing the above Civil Revision Application. The reasons for the delay are mentioned in Paragraphs 1(iii), 2(i), 2(ii) and 3 of the Civil Application. The sum and substance of the reasons mentioned is that the impugned order was passed on 23rd July, 2008, application for 2 certified copy was made on 29th July, 2008, and the said certified copy was made available to the applicants on 26th August, 2008. 2. It has also been stated that the applicants were awaiting the decision of the Apex Court in Leelabai Gajanan Pansare's case. The suit filed by the applicants was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Leelabai Pansare's case against which the proceedings were filed in the Apex Court and were pending at the relevant time. The issue in Leelabai Gajanan Pansare's case being relevant, namely whether Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 applies to the respondent. It is the case of the applicants that they became aware of the Judgment of the Apex Court some time in November, 2008. Thereafter, the applicants immediately filed Writ Petition in this Court impugning the Judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The said Writ Petition was allowed to be converted by a learned Single Judge in view of the remedy of revision available to the applicants. The applicants have thereafter, immediately converted the Writ Petition into the present Civil Revision 3 Application No.13 of 2009. It is, therefore, the case of the applicants that in the said process there has been a delay of about 97 days. On behalf of the respondent an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. It is the case of the respondent that the applicants have not shown any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is the case of the respondent that the applicants have not explained as to why at all they had filed the Writ Petition earlier challenging the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed that the applicants had filed Writ Petition in this Court challenging the impugned order. The fact that the issue regarding the applicability of Section 3(1)(b) was also pending before the Apex Court in Leebai Pansare's case cannot be disputed. In my view, there was nothing wrong on the part of the Appellants in waiting for the Judgment of the Apex Court as the issue therein was of great relevance to the applicants and that the said decision would decide the fate of the applicants' suit. 4. It is well settled by a catena of the Judgments of the Apex 4 Court that in matters of condonation of delay a highly technical and pedantic approach should not be followed but an approach which furthers the cause of substantial justice should be adopted. In my view the reasons mentioned by the Appellants in the instant case are worthy of acceptance in the matter of condonation of delay. 5. In my view, inconvenience or prejudice, if any, caused to the respondent can be compensated by imposing appropriate costs. The above Civil Application would, therefore, have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). However, the interest of justice requires that the applicants pay costs of Rs.3000/- to the respondent within a period of four weeks from date. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)