1984 INSC 0258
                     M/s. Bhojraj Kunwarji Oil Mill and Ginning Factory and Another

                                                           Vs

                                 Yograjsinha Shankarsinha Parihar and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 3975 of 1984

                                        (D. A. Desai, Ranganath Misra JJ)

                                                      24.09.1984

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Respondents obtained a decree for possession against the appellants in Regular Civil Suit 146 of
1964 on the ground that the respondents bona fide required the suit premises for their personal use
and occupation. The decree was made under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. This decree was finally confirmed by the order of this
Court when petition for special leave to appeal filed by the appellants-tenants was dismissed by this
Court. Thereafter the decree for eviction was put into execution and physical possession of the
premises involved in the dispute was handed over to the respondents on August 24, 1972. As the
respondents failed to use the premises for which possession was obtained, an application was moved
by the appellants for being re-inducted into possession as provided by Section 17 of the Act. As
there was some delay in moving the application, a petition was filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay in making the application. The trial court by its
order dated December 8, 1978 held that the appellants have made out sufficient case for being
prevented from moving the application in time and delay was condoned. the respondents filed a
revision petition which was heard by the learned Assistant Judge who reversed the findings of the
trial court and held that no case was made out for condoning the delay. After an unsuccessful
revision petition to the High Court, the appellants filed this appeal by special leave.

3. Mr M. N. Phadke, learned counsel who appeared for the respondents urged that both the learned
Assistant Judge and the High Court were fully justified in holding that no convincing ground was
made out before the trial court for condoning the delay. One has merely to peruse the convincing
reasons given by the trial court for condoning the delay. The learned trial judge also noticed that till
the date of his order, the demised premises were not put to use for which possession was obtained.
The approach of the trial court was both fair and reasonable and the conclusion recorded by it is
convincing.

4. Against this order, a revision petition was preferred which was heard by the learned Assistant
Judge. We find it difficult to appreciate the approach of the learned Assistant Judge while exercising
revisional jurisdiction in interfering with an eminently just order. And the High court disposed of
the matter observing that the grounds urged by the appellants for seeking condonation of delay were
obviously no grounds at all. Again this approach left us unconvinced. If the trial court had the
jurisdiction to condone delay, we find no material for holding that there was any impropriety in
exercising this jurisdiction. therefore, we are of the opinion that both the learned Assistant Judge
and the High Court were not justified in interfering with the order of the trial court, in exercise of
the revisional jurisdiction on the only ground that a different view on facts elicited was possible.
This approach hardly permits interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

5. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and restore the one of
the trial court and remit the matter to the trial court for disposal of the application on merits
according to law. Since the matter is an old one, the trial court will dispose it of within four months
from today.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

</html