- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that she was allotted premises in question vide order dated 1-1-2003 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/city Magistrate, Mathura. THE aforesaid order was challenged by landlord Sri Kapoor Chand Jain by filing a review application. THE review application appears to be still pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/city Magistrate, Mathura. It further appears that after the death of Sri Kapoor Chand Jain an application for substitution was made by Smt. Madhu Jain his daughter as the property devolved on her through will claiming on fresh ground. She also filed a fresh revision in her own rights alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The objection was filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is inordinate delay in filing the same. After hearing the Counsel for the parties the Court below has allowed Section 5 application and condoned the delay in filing the review application. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.
(3.) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that condonation of delay is discretion of the Court based on its satisfaction as to whether sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been shown or not. Since it is discretionary matter and the Court having been satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay no interference is required in the impugned order as legality of the order is not involved. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. .;