1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9831 OF 2009 Mukund Shankarrao Kari & Anr. ...petitioners vs. Smt.Sunanda Vinayak Joshi through her C.A. Pandurang Sadashiv Godbole ...Respondent Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the petitioners Mr.S.M.Oak i/b Mr.Sagar Joshi for respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent filed an application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The petitioners applied for leave to defend in accordance with sub section 4(a) of section 43 of the said Act. The said application was rejected on the ground that it is not filed within the time specified in sub section 4(a) of section 43 of the said Act. The order of eviction was passed by the Competent Authority. The order of eviction was challenged by the petitioners by filing a Revision Application under section 44 of the said Act. The Revision Application has been dismissed. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was a delay of one day in applying for grant of leave to defend and looking to the reasons set out, the delay ought to have been condoned. He submitted that the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend ought to have been considered on merits. 2 3 I have considered the submissions. The law on this point is no longer res-integra. In case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes (Ms) [(2003) 8 SCC 431], the Apex Court has held that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to sub-section 4(a) of section 43 of the said Act and there is no power vesting in the Competent Authority to condone the delay or to extend the time for filing the application for leave to defend. Sub- section 4 (a) of section 43 reads thus : 4(a) The tenant or license on whom the summons is duly served in the ordinary or by registered post in the manner laid down in sub section (3) shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises, unless within thirty days of the service of summons on him as aforesaid, he filed an affidavit stating grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Competent Authority as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the Statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant or the licensee, as the case may be, and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. 4 In view of failure of the petitioners to apply within the stipulated time of 30 days, the petitioners are not entitled to contest the prayer for eviction and the statements made by the respondent in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the petitioners. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Jain (supra), the Competent Authority had no power to condone the delay of even a single day. That is how the order of eviction has been passed. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Prakash Jain (supra), no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. 3 5 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that ad-interim relief granted on 10 th December 2009 may be continued for a reasonable period to enable the petitioners to challenge this order. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 6 Ad-interim relief granted on 10 th December 2009 will continue to operate for a period of 10 weeks from today subject to the petitioners complying with the conditions incorporated in the said order. If the arrears upto the end of December 2009 are not deposited till date, the same shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended subject to condition that the petitioners will continue to pay at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month. JUDGE