IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2011 MR. MINGUELINHO D'COSTA ... Petitioner Versus SHRI DINNANTH A. NADKARNI (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S AND ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 30th November, 2011 P.C.:- Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The above petition challenges the judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in tenancy revision application No. 26/2010 whereby the tenancy application filed by the respondents which was dismissed for default came to be restored. Shri De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the justification given by the respondents to the effect that the wrong date was given by the Advocate appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the affidavit filed by such Advocate. The learned counsel points out that as the justification cannot be accepted, the question of restoring the original tenancy application which came to be dismissed for default would not arise at all. The learned Counsel further points out that the Tribunal has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction whilst passing the impugned judgment and allowing the restoration of the original tenancy application which calls for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of records, I find that the Tribunal whilst passing the impugned judgment has restored the tenancy application filed by the respondents in the interest of justice. The Tribunal on the basis of appreciable evidence on record has accepted the explanation given by the respondents to restore such proceedings. Such findings of fact cannot be reappreciated by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned judgment is passed to advance substantial justice and as such the question of interference by this Court does not arise at all. 4. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above petition which stands dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. at*