Amit Kantilal Lunkad v. Aziz Vazir Khan & Ors

k 2/7 6 n 910 wp 4854.26 as.doc3.The Petitioners are original Defendants in Civil Suit Nos.120 of2019 and 121 of 2019 filed by the Plaintiffs-landlords seeking recovery ofpossession of the suit premises on various grounds such as default inpayment of rent, non-use, structural changes in the premises andbonafide use. Petitioners appeared in the Suits and filed their WrittenStatements. However, thereafter Petitioners/Defendants failed to remainpresent before the Trial Court. They neither conducted cross-examination of Plaintiffs’ witness nor led their own evidence. The TrialCourt has decreed both the Suits by accepting all the four grounds ofdefault in payment of rent, none-use, damage to the suit premises andbonafide requirement. The Suits were decreed on 17 December 2023. 4.The Petitioners/Defendants were negligent in not filing Appealsagainst the eviction decrees within prescribed statutory period oflimitation. The Appeals were sought to be lodged before the DistrictJudge after delay of 280 days. 5.For condonation delay of 280 days, Petitioners filed CivilMiscellaneous Application Nos.1531 of 2025 and 1532 of 2025. In boththe Applications, similar pleadings were raised. It would be apposite toreproduce the justifications pleaded for seeking condonation of delay of280 days in the Applications filed by the Petitioners/Defendants: “2. However, there has been a delay of 280 days in filing the presentAppeal. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant have been facing severalproblems during the said period. There have been several false criminalcomplaints filed by certain persons with the police against the Applicant alongwith some civil proceedings, due to which the Applicant have been facingsevere mental trauma and agony. The Applicant have settled several of the saidkatkamPage No. 2 of 7 k 3/7 6 n 910 wp 4854.26 as.docfalse proceedings by making arrangement of funds and the Applicant havebeen facing severe financial constraints.3. Further, the Applicant needed to travel out of Pune on multipleoccasions for reasons such consulting doctors in Mumbai regarding the ill-health of their mother, emergency situation in their family and certainunforeseen situations which were beyond the control of the Applicant.4. The Applicant faced undue hardship and suffered financial crisis andwere unable to meet their advocates and give them the necessary information,documents and instructions to file the Appeal.5. It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the present Appeal isneither intentional nor willful.6. The Applicant have a good case on merits and are of sanguine hopes ofsuccess in the said matter. There shall be irreparable loss and injustice causedto the Applicant if the delay to prefer the Appeal is not condoned and if thesaid delay is condoned, no such irreparable loss and injustice shall be causedto the Respondents.7.It is respectfully submitted that the present application forcondonation of delay by the Applicant should be allowed and the delay infiling the present Appeal should be condoned so that the matter can beadjudicated upon its merits.”6.Thus, the justifications pleaded for seeking condonation of delayof 280 days in filing the Appeals included facing of problems due to filingof several false criminal complaints by certain persons and filing of somecivil proceedings on account of which Petitioners faced severe mentaltrauma and agony. The Petitioners pleaded that they were required totravel out of Pune on multiple occasions and for consulting doctors inMumbai regarding ill-health of their mother and for handling emergencysituations in the family. Petitioners/Defendants also pleaded the pretextof facing undue hardship and suffering of financial crisis, whichprevented them from meeting their Advocates. On above broad pretexts,condonation of delay of 280 days in filing the Appeals was sought. In myview, the justifications pleaded in the Applications are vague, withoutkatkamPage No. 3 of 7 k 4/7 6 n 910 wp 4854.26 as.docany material particulars and more importantly, in absence of anydocumentary evidence. No documentary evidence was produced toestablish alleged medical treatment of the mother of thePetitioners/Defendants. The Appellate Court has observed that thePetitioners/Defendants are renowned Builders in Pune city, who havecompleted various residential and commercial projects. The fact that thePetitioners/Defendants have referred to filing of criminal complaints andcivil proceedings against them indicate that Petitioners are seasonedlitigants. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the positionthat the Petitioners/Defendants were prevented from meeting Advocatesfor the purpose of filing of the Appeals in time. 7.Also of relevance is the conduct exhibited by the Petitionersduring pendency of the Suits. After filing Written Statements,Petitioners/Defendants made disappearing act before the Trial Court andneither cross-examined Plaintiffs’ witness nor led their own evidence.The Petitioners/Defendants are thus negligent not only after passing ofeviction decrees but also during the course of Trial of the Suits. Even ifPetitioner/Defendants’ conduct during pendency of the suits is to bemonetarily ignored, they have failed to plead proper justification forcondonation of undue delay of 280 days. 8.Mr. Soni has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Sheo RajSingh vs. Union of India1. However, the principles discussed in paragraph31 of the judgment are actually the reasons cited by the High Court insupport of its order. In Sheo Raj Singh (supra) the Apex Court has1Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015, decided on 9 October 2023katkamPage No. 4 of 7 k 5/7 6 n 910 wp 4854.26 as.docdeclined to interfere with discretion exercised by the High Court when itwas found that exercise of discretion was not an arbitrary exercise. In thepresent case, Petitioners have failed to plead sufficient cause forcondonation of long delay of 280 days. Given their background andability to handle large number of litigations, it is difficult to accept theposition that Petitioners could have been prevented from seeking advicefor filing of the Appeals within time. 9.Though this Court is not expected to go into the merits of the casewhile deciding the issue of condonation of delay, it is seen that grant ofan opportunity to the Petitioners to prosecute the Appeals would be anexercise in futility. In the eviction decree, the Trial Court has acceptedthe ground of default of payment of rent. Admittedly, after issuance ofnotice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999,Petitioners did not pay the rent. Mr. Soni submits that the Petitionersnever received the notice issued by the landlords. Even if this contentionis accepted, Petitioners had second opportunity of making good thedefault by depositing in the Court within 90 days of receipt of suitsummons the arrears of rent, interest at the rate of 15% and costs of thesuit. However, even this second opportunity was not availed by thePetitioners/Defendants and they remained incalcitrant in their approachof non-payment of rent. The least that is expected of the tenant whowants to enjoy protection from eviction is regular payment of rent.However, the Petitioners/Defendants are found to have defaulted inpayment of rent for a considerable time. Despite being threatened witheviction action, they remained negligent and did not deposit rent in thekatkamPage No. 5 of 7 k 6/7 6 n 910 wp 4854.26 as.docCourt. In that view of the matter, it is quite questionable as to whetherthe Petitioners really have any case on merits for prosecution of theAppeal. 10.I am therefore of the view that the District Court has rightlyrejected the Applications for condonation of delay. The District Courthas correctly refused to exercise the discretion considering the facts andcircumstances of the case. The District Court has recorded cogentreasons for refusing to condone the delay. It would be apposite toreproduce findings recorded by the Appellate Court in paragraph 8 of itsorders which reads thus:“8. It is settled law that, term "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 of theLimitation Act is to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice.The period of limitation for preferring the appeal is 30 days. As such, there isdelay of more than 300 days in preferring the appeal. Moreover, as perapplicants, the present application and appeal was ready on 04.12.2025 and itis preferred on 22.12.2025. The applicants have not provided any cause for thedelay in filing the present application along with appeal though it appears thatthe present application and appeal was ready on 04.12.2025. As such, each daydelay in preferring the appeal is not explained by the applicants in pragmaticmanner. Admittedly, the cause of delay contended in the application ischallenged by the respondents. The fact that applicants are the well knownbuilders in Pune and they have completed various residential and commercialprojects, is not disputed. The documents produced are the notices issuedunder the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'SARFAESIAct) and other financial institution and proceeding under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'NI Act'). The documentsproduced are of the year 2025 and as per application, applicants were settlingthe said matters. It is not the case of the applicants they could not engageadvocate in the criminal proceeding also. Considering the fact that applicantsare renowned builders, their previous conduct during the trial of the suit,prima-facie there appear no substance in the contention of applicants that dueto financial constraints, they were unable to meet their advocates and to givethem necessary information and instructions to prefer appeal and due to thecivil and criminal proceedings, they were under trauma. Moreover, no detailskatkamPage No. 6 of 7 k 7/7 6 n 910 wp 4854.26 as.docof the ill-health of mother are provided. As such, there appear mala fides onthe part of applicants. Considering the previous conduct during the trial of thesuit and above discussion, the delay appears to be intentional. From theappreciation of the material on record, prima-facie there appear no substancein the contention of the applicants that respondents have obtained theimpugned decree by fraud. As such, in the humble opinion of the courtconsidering the facts of the present case, the judgments relied by theapplicants cited supra are not helpful to the applicants.”11.I am in full agreement with the above findings recorded by thelearned District Court. Consequently, Writ Petitions are bereft of meritsand are accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)katkamPage No. 7 of 7