By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order passed below Exh.1, by Ad-hoc District Judge-5, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Application No.862/2008, rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that appeal itself was not provided for in the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1999 Act”).

2. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Raju Dhoble for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Sambhare holding for Advocate Shri A.G.Gharote for respondent finally looking to the nature of controversy, by making Rule returnable forthwith.

3. On 14/10/2009, this Court gave time to both the sides to find out whether the matter could be amicably settled and also gave them further time on 13/11/2009. On 23/11/2009, I have heard the parties on the issue of maintainability and they were further heard on 25/11/2009.

4. Learned Advocate Shri Dhoble for the petitioner states that the Court below could not have dismissed the appeal itself when it was deciding the prayer for condonation of delay. According to him, the appeal should have been registered after condoning the delay a