IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11034 OF 2026 Nitish Yogesh Hajare .. Petitioner Vs. Rahul Sharad Desai & Anr. .. Respondent Adv. A. P. Madhuri, Adv. Gaurang Pendurkar a/w Adv. Uday D. Kapse, for the Petitioner. Adv. Rahul Sharad Desai, for the Respondent. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Date : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Court refusing to condone the delay of 77 days delay in filing an Appeal challenging the order of eviction passed against the Petitioner by the Small Causes Court under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits she had bonafide grounds for seeking condonation of delay. She also submits that the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction as there is no landlord tenant relations between the parties. She submits that the Petitioner 1/3 5.WP.11034.2026.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA is a gratuitous licensee of the Respondent and the suit under Rent Control Act is not maintainable. Perused the Judgment of the trial Court so also the Judgment of the Appellate Court refusing to condone the delay of 77 days in filing appeal by holding that it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing Appeal. 3. In this regard, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Ms. Marie Fernandes (2003) 8 SCC 431 is relevant wherein it is held that the Appellate Authority constituted under the Rent Control Act cannot condone the delay in filing Appeal as it has no power to condone the delay under the Rent Control Act as the Act does not provide for condonation of delay in filing Appeal. 4. Perusal of the trial Court Judgment indicates that the Petitioner has not filed his written statement and the case of the Respondent landlord has gone uncontested. The Petitioner appeared before the trial Court however has failed to file written statement as such the case made by the Respondent/ landlord that the Petitioner was given premises on leave and license basis has been accepted by the trial Court. The same is based on the evidence produced by the Respondent that they are the owners of the premises and they had given the premises on oral leave and license agreement to the Respondent. The case of the Plaintiff/Respondent put up against the present 2/3 5.WP.11034.2026.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA Petitioner defendant has not been contested on factual matrix. As such the statement made by the Respondent landlord has been accepted by the trial Court. This Court as such cannot entertain the submissions made by the Petitioner that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent and the same cannot be adjudicated, in absence of any factual dispute being raised before the trial Court. Considering the same, this Court holds that the trial Court had the jurisdiction; to deal with the eviction suit. 5. In view of the same, no case made out to interfere in the impugned judgment which is passed in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, Petition stands dismissed. 7. After passing of the order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks stay to the impugned order for a period of 8 weeks. The execution of the impugned orders shall remain stayed for a period of 8 weeks subject to the Petitioner paying all outstanding amounts. (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) 3/3 5.WP.11034.2026.doc Sufiyan Syed - PA