Civil Revision Petition M.P. No.5811 of 2011 is filed seeking to condone the delay of ten days in filing an application for setting aside the order dated 21.07.2010 made in Civil Revision Petition No.5025 of 2009. Civil Revision Petition M.P. No.1207 of 2011 is filed seeking restitution of possession in favour of the petitioners therein in respect of the eviction in petition schedule property in R.C.No.394 of 2002, on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 herein are the legal heirs of the original tenant Dasari Vaikuntham. They are respondents before the Rent Controller. The 1st respondent herein is the original owner of the petition schedule premises. The respondents 2 to 4 are his legal heirs.

3. On the ground of bona fide requirement, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(c) of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control) Act, 1960 (for short, the Act), respondents 1 to 4 filed petition vide R.C.No.394 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the petitioners and also filed R.C.No.399 of 2002, under Section 4 of the Act, before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking fixation of fair rent from the date of application in respect of the petition schedule premises. It appears that the eviction petition was filed on 03.10.2002 and petition for fixation of fair rent was filed on 04.10.2002. The Rent Controller allowed R.C.No.399 of 2002 on 16.10.2006, fixing fair rent at Rs.4,050/-from the date of petition and, R.C.No.394 of 2002 was allowed on 27.09.2007 directing the petitioners to vacate and handover the petition schedule premises within two months from the date of that order. Challenging the order made in R.C.No.394 of 2002, the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 filed R.A.No.252 of 2007 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, and by Judgment dated 24.08.2009, the appeal was allowed. Challenging the orders passed in R.A.No.252 of 2007, the respondents 1 to 4 filed Civil Revision Petition No.5025 of 2009 on 26.10.2009. The said CRP came up for admission before this Court on 30.10.2009. On that day, notices were issued to the respondents therein and the respondents 1 to 4 herein, who are the petitioners in the said CRP, were permitted to take out notices on the respondents and the said CRP was ordered to be listed on 22.01.2010. From 22.01.2010, it was ordered to be posted on 27.01.2010. However, the case was listed on 18.06.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents 1 to 4 filed a memo stating that the respondents 1 to 4 have sent a registered post communication on 04.11.2009 for all the petitioners at their family residential address and that the 3rd petitioner received the registered letter and his postal acknowledgement is filed. The registered letters sent to the petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 and respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been returned. Notices were served on 3rd respondent in CRP No.5025 of 2009/2nd petitioner herein, i.e. D.V.Krishna Murthy, and notices on other respondents were returned as unclaimed. Admittedly, the address of all the respondents in the said CRP is shown as residents of premises No.2-2-1164/25/2, Tilak Nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. In this application also, the address of the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 is shown as the same. It appears that respondent No.5 is said to be residing in USA. Notices were sent to that address also, and notices to respondent No.6 were also sent to her address at New Delhi. It is further stated that the respondents 1 to 4 have also filed another memo stating that they received a reply from the Chief Post Master, GPO Hyderabad, stating that the registered letter was delivered on 13.11.2009 to respondent No.6 i.e. Smt. K. Swarnalatha at her address at New Delhi.

4. On 25.06.2010, this Court, having regard to the fact that the notices sen