JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. THIS application is directed against the order dated July 17, 1991 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal in B.T. Appeal No.141/83-84. 2. THE short fact is that the petitioner is the owner of the premises no.15, Kali Temple Road and this premises comprises one storey brick wall CI and RT shed and partly two-storied brick wall CI and asbestos shed, structures since before 1930. He did not make any addition or alteration of the said premises at all save and except certain repairs and white and colour washing. Previously, one tenant, namely, Maniklal Gupta was occupying the said premises and thereafter one Gobardhan Dube became the tenant of the said premises. In September, 1974, the tenant, Gobardhan Dube, got a notice under Section 414 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (now repealed) contending that certain unauthorised construction was detected in June, 1965. The petitioner did not get any notice as owner of the said premises. On knowing such fact of issuance of notice, the petitioner wrote a letter dated February 15, 1974 to the City Architect of the Corporation stating, inter alia, that the age of the impugned structure was more than 12 years. Thereafter, one demolition case was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner gave a reply stating that the construction of the premises was made before 1930. But by an order dated September 6, 1983, the Special Officer (Building) passed an order of demolition and it was communicated to the petitioner directing to demolish the unauthorised construction within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order of demolition, the petitioner preferred an appeal in December 1983, but the said appeal was dismissed for default on December 10, 1990. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissed for default, this application has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that it is the plaintiff who took the dilatory tactics to avoid demolition of the structure. Several adjournments were sought for by the petitioner so that the hearing of the appeal could not be completed. 3. UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that it is the plaintiff who took the dilatory tactics to avoid demolition of the structure. Several adjournments were sought for by the petitioner so that the hearing of the appeal could not be completed. The notice of demolition under Section 414 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (old Act) was issued in September, 1974 upon the occupier of the premises of the petitioner and since then the matter is pending and an order of demolition passed by the Special officer (Building) on September 6, 1983 could not be implemented as yet. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was being delayed by various pretexts. The last ground that was taken by the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner died on March 24, 1990 and his only daughter was given in marriage and she has been residing at her father-in-law’s house in Murshidabad. After death of the wife of the petitioner, he lost balance of his mind. He is an old person and for that reason he was totally unaware of the said appeal. He was not informed of the case either by the Tribunal or by his learned Advocate. Ultimately, in May, 1991 after recovery from his grief, he realised senses. He came to know the appeal was dismissed for default on December 10, 1990. According to his further contention, his learned Advocate lost the diary and he was unaware of the date of hearing on December 10, 1990. As such, the learned Advocate for the petitioner could not appear on the date of hearing. This contention of the petitioner, I hold, is not believable. At the time of filing of the appeal, he obtained interim order and on the basis of that interim order, the demolition proceeding has been stayed and thus, the unauthorised structure remains as it is. 4. THIS being the position, I am of the view that the learned Building Tribunal has rightly observed that there is no substance in the petition for setting aside the order of dismissal dated December 10, 1990. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the order impugned. So, this application fails to succeed. 5. ACCORDINGLY, it is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the order impugned. So, this application fails to succeed. 5. ACCORDINGLY, it is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.