JUDGMENT : SOUMEN SEN, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. V.A. Vinod, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. The petitioner suffered an order of eviction in a rent control proceeding initiated in the year 2017 and numbered as R.C.P. No. 35 of 2017. The eviction order was passed on 29.08.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with a petition seeking condonation of delay, which was numbered as R.C.A. No. 223 of 2019 against the said impugned order. However, it appears that the said appeal came to be dismissed on 24.02.2023 with the following observations: “No representation for the appellant. No steps against the respondents in the delay petition and appeal as directed. Appellant and counsel for the appellant is continuously absent. Delay petition is dismissed (I.A.4519/19). Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.” 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3 of 2023 seeking restoration of the appeal. However, the said application was also dismissed on 13.07.2023 with the following observations: “No representation for the petitioner. This petition is filed to re-admit the appeal. Along with the appeal, a delay petition was filed by the appellant in IA 4519/19. The said IA was dismissed for want of steps and consequently the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Now the petition is filed to re-admit the appeal without an application to restore the IA 4519/19 (Delay petition). So this petition is dismissed as not maintainable.” 4. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority was fully justified in not admitting the appeal. The petition in I.A. No. 4519 of 2019, filed for condonation of delay, ought to have been restored first, and such restoration could have been ordered only upon the petitioner offering a satisfactory explanation for not been able to be present on the day when the said matter was dismissed for default. We have been informed that execution proceedings have already been initiated. In view of the fact that the learned Appellate Authority was justified in not readmitting the appeal for the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. However, it is open for the petitioner to apply before the learned Appellate Authority for restoration of the delay petition and it would be entirely at the discretion of the Appellate Authority to decide the application uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. However, it is open for the petitioner to apply before the learned Appellate Authority for restoration of the delay petition and it would be entirely at the discretion of the Appellate Authority to decide the application uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application before the Appellate Authority within one week from date. Such application may also be placed before the Execution Court for its consideration as to whether delivery of possession should be effected in the meantime. In view of the nature of the order passed, we do not propose to issue notice to the respondents. 5. The RC Rev. is accordingly disposed of.