MANNEKBEN S. TANDEL Vs. PASCOAL FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Shivan Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.

(2.) THE above petition challenges the judgment passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 14.07.2010 whereby the tenancy revision preferred by the respondent no.1 came to be allowed and the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners before the Dy. Collector along with the application for leave to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Mamlatdar came to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has vehemently supported the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has pointed out that the application filed by the petitioners was on the premise that there was collusion between the respondent no.1 and said Nitin Kudav which the petitioners have failed to establish by any piece of evidence. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Dy. Collector has ignored the contentions raised by the petitioners in the application for condonation of delay and has made out a fresh sufficient cause which does not curl out from the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Dy. Collector has further found that there was no knowledge of the impugned order which is not averred in the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered that the Dy. Collector has travelled beyond the pleadings/averments made by the petitioners in the application for condonation of delay and as such, the learned Tribunal was justified to interfere with the order passed by the Dy. Collector for condoning the delay. The learned counsel further pointed out that without prejudice to his first contention in case this Court find favour with the justification shown by the petitioners with regard to the condonation of delay, the learned Tribunal has not considered on merits the contention of the respondent no.1 with regard to the challenge made by him to the second portion of the impugned order passed by the Dy. Collector granting leave to the petitioners to challenge the judgment of the learned Mamlatdar. The learned counsel further pointed out that in case the delay is condoned, the learned Tribunal be directed to decide the challenge by the respondent no.1 to the leave granted by the Dy. Collector by the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2006. The learned counsel as such submits that the above petition be rejected.