IMPORTANT POINT
Government entities must show valid reasons for delays in legal proceedings, as the law of limitation applies equally to all.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. The State of Maharashtra and Commissioner of Police, Mumbai have filed this Interim Application seeking condonation of delay of 1 year and 300 days in filing the Civil Revision Application for challenging the decree dated 3 February 2020 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by which the appeal preferred by Applicants challenging the eviction decree dated 31 October 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs-landlords instituted R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 632/1148 of 2004 against Applicants/Defendants seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises being Room No. 33 situated on the 4th floor of ‘Ahmed Building’ situated at 49/51, Lohar Chawl, Mumbai-400 002, in which Defendant No. 1 was inducted as monthly tenant at rent of Rs.487.50. The Suit was instituted on the ground of bonafide requirement and arrears of rent. The Suit came to be decreed on the ground of arrears of rent on 31 October 2012 holding that Plaintiffs served valid notice on Defendants under provisions of Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the MRC Act) and that Defendants failed to pay the arrears of rent after receipt of notice. It was further held that Defendants failed to deposit the arrears of rent even after receipt of suit summons under the provisions of Section 15(3) of the MRC Act. Accordingly, Defendants were directed to handover possession of the suit premises to Plaintiffs vide decree dated 31 October 2012.

3. Applicants/Defendants filed Appeal No.107 of 2013 challenging the decree of the Trial Court on 31 October 2012 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3 February 2020. The present Revision Application is lodged on 17 January 2024.

4. Mr. Haldankar, the learned AGP would appear for Applicants and submit that the Revision Application has been filed by the State Government with utmost alacrity. The events pleaded in the detailed chronology in the Application would indicate the prompt steps at every level for taking decision for filing of the Revision Application. That the pandemic may have ended for common litigants on 18 February 2022, but for police department the machinery needed to be deployed for much longer period after 18 February 2022. So far as the period after 28 February 2022 is concerned, it is submitted by him that for Police Department, the situation had not normalized even after 28 February 2022 and therefore the Police machinery was not back on the track for taking decisions with usual speed. He has further submitted that the Applicants being a part of Government establishment, decision making involved processing of proposals at various hierarchical levels. He has submitted that after 1 March 2022, steps have been taken for securing various approvals for filing of the Revision Application and delay involved in seeking various approvals is not deliberate and is attributable to the peculiar functioning of various departments of the State Government.

5. Dr. Chandrachud, the learned counsel appearing for Plaintiffs-landlords would oppose the Interim Application submitting that no justifiable cause is shown for condonation of inordinate delay of more than 4 long years in filing the Revision Application. That if any department had permission to function during pandemic period was the police department and therefore the Applicants cannot be permitted to take shelter of pandemic for explaining the inordinate delay. He would object to justification sought to be canvassed on behalf of Applicants about their status as Government. He would submit that mere status of Applicants as departments of State Government, does not confer any special status on them in the matter of condonation of delay. He has relied upon some of the judgments in support of his contentions that administrative delay by State as a litigant cannot be accepted in absence of suf