IMPORTANT POINT
A justice-oriented approach must be adopted in condoning delays, focusing on 'sufficient cause' rather than hyper-technical grounds.

ORDER :

Sujoy Paul, J.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 02.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.41 of 2024 in R.C.No.17 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 64 days was rejected by the Principal Rent Controller at Secunderabad (Authority).

2. In short, admitted facts between the parties are that the main rent control case in R.C.No.17 of 2022 was filed by the respondent/landlord before the learned Authority. Upon receiving notice, the tenant appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the said rent control case on the ground that the schedule property was a vacant land and not building and hence, the rent control case is not maintainable. The learned Authority by order dated 10.04.2023 rejected the plaint.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.04.2023, the landlord preferred C.R.P.No.1561 of 2023, which was decided on 05.01.2024. This Court set aside the order dated 10.04.2023. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1561 of 2023 was made available to the tenant only on 23.04.2024.

4. On the strength of this Court’s order dated 05.01.2024, the landlord preferred a memo, whereby order of this Court was placed before the learned Authority. On the basis of said memo, the R.C.No.17 of 2022 was restored to its original number and the tenant was directed to be noticed again.

5. The office of the learned Authority never issued any notice to the petitioner, instead learned counsel for the respondent on 22.01.2024 filed a memo along with proof of service of personal notice issued to the Head Office of the petitioner in Mumbai. Pertinently, the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC (I.A.No.72 of 2022) was filed by the Hyderabad Office of the tenant. The learned counsel, who was already appearing in R.C.No.17 of 2022 for the tenant, was not put to notice nor local office was served by the landlord.

6. Learned Authority set the petitioner ex parte without appreciating that notice was not issued in accordance with Rules 8 and 22 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961. Learned Authority by treating the tenant as served has passed final order in R.C.No.17 of 2022 on 18.03.2024.

7. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant submits that the Head Office of the tenant at Mumbai came to know about service of notice in the last week of May, 2024. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant before the Court below accordingly filed application dated 21.06.2024 for setting aside the ex parte order along with an application for condonation of delay. The landlord filed its counter in the condone delay application. The parties were heard by the learned Authority on 26.06.2024 and by order dated 02.07.2024, the condone delay application was dismissed.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for tenant submits that as per the Rules, the learned Authority ought to have ensured that the learned counsel for the tenant, who was appearing in R.C.No.17 of 2022, is put to notice. Learned Authority failed to ensure the same and miserably failed to see that as per the directions issued by it, the Office/Registry of the Authority had never issued any notice to the petitioner upon the restoration of the matter. On the strength of recent common order passed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.2084 of 2024 and batch dated 02.08.2024, learned Senior Counsel for the tenant submits that this Court has taken note of relevant Supreme Court judgments on the question of condonation of delay. The Authority has mechanically declined to condone the delay. In an organization of tenant like Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, the administrative procedure consumes time, which is a normal procedure. In the fitness of things, the Authority should have