JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge is the order dated 23.5.2017 whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner alongwith appeal against the judgment dated 17.9.2016 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. The appeal has also been consequently dismissed. 2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.5.2017 indicates that albeit the delay in filing the appeal was only for about 10 days beyond limitation prescribed under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, yet reason for delay set out was false inasmuch it was supported by receipts of a Doctor (a la Munna Bhai) evidencing purported illness of the petitioner - tenant. The Rent Appellate Tribunal held the discretion of the Court could not be exercised for the benefit of one who did not approach the court with clean hand, rather invoked the court's discretion on palpably false ground/s. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr. [ (2008) 17 SCC 448 ]; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. [ (2010) 5 SCC 459 ], V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors. [ (2012) 12 SCC 133 ]; and Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) [ (2012) 5 SCC 370 ] to dismiss the application for condonation of delay. 3. Counsel for the petitioner had no plausible argument to displace the impugned order. All that he submitted was that the delay was only for a little over 10 days. 4. That however is not the issue. Number of days of delay in filing the appeal may be insignificant but where falsity underlines an application it has to be dismissed in the interest of justice to keep the stream of administration of justice pure. The superintending jurisdiction of this Court cannot be allowed to be invoked by litigants who file false cases/set-up false defences before the court below. There is thus no warrant to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.5.2017. 5. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.