3.Mr. Sonavane, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicants in all the above Applications submits that the
Applicants were in bonafide belief that at some day, they will also
be getting a new premises, like the other employees who had
received the premises pursuant to the scheme floated by
Respondent No.1-Company. He submitted that in the delay
condonation Applications, it has been specifically mentioned that
there was a delay in filing the Civil Applications. He submits that
this Court may take a liberal view and allow the Applicants to
argue the matters on merits. He further submitted that the
Applicants were tenants of Respondent No.1-Company, as also all
of them were working with Respondent No.1-Company and as of
now under the voluntary retirement scheme, they are no more in
the employment of Respondent No.1-Company. Respondent No.1-
Company, around a year back, by way of conveyance deed sold
out the properties of the Company to Respondent No.2. He further
submits that initially, Respondent No.1-Company had filed an
Application No.59 of 2000 before the Competent Authority u/s. 24
of the Maharashtra Rent Control 1999 (for short, “the Rent Act”)
He submits that in the said proceedings, the Applicants took a
stand that they were tenants and the competent authority would
have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the eviction proceedings.
Subsequent to the said objection, the said proceedings were
dismissed. He further submits that Respondent No.1-Company
