Writ petitions should not be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy exists, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural norms and discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction.

1. Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. D. Narender Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Venkatesh, leaned Senior counsel, representing Mr. Vishal Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing or respondent No.2.

Undisputed facts: -

2. Second respondent herein had filed an application vide RC No.17 of 2022 before the 1st respondent under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner herein seeking eviction of it from the subject property i.e. land situated at Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad in Old No.103, admeasuring 91’-0” North to South and 155’-0” East to West in all admeasuring 14500 sq.feet along with constructed area admeasuring 500sq.feet bounded by North: Sardar Patel Road, South: Remaining Portion of Landlord/Lessor’s land, East: Neighbours property/private land and West: Parklane Road.

3. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC vide I.A. No.72 of 2022 in R.C. No. 17 of 2022 for rejection of petition filed by the 2 nd respondent. Vide order dated 10.04.2023, 1st respondent allowed the said application rejecting the petition filed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the schedule property was mere vacant land and not a building as defined under the Act. 2nd respondent filed a revision vide CRP No.1561 of 2023 challenging the said order and vide order dated 05.01.2024, this Court allowed the said CRP setting aside the order dated 10.04.2023 in I.A.No.72 of 2022 in R.C.No.17 of 2022 passed by the 1st respondent. 2nd respondent filed a memo along with copy of the order dated 05.01.2024 in CRP No.1561 of 2023 before the 1st respondent on 12.01.2024. 1st respondent ordered notice to the petitioner and posted the matter to 22.01.2024 on which date, 2nd respondent filed a memo along with proof of service of summons to the petitioner and that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein. 1st respondent adjourned the matter to 02.02.2024 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 05.02.2024 for appearance of the petitioner as last chance before passing appropriate orders. On 05.02.2024, 1st respondent set the petitioner ex parte holding that the petitioner and his counsel were absent during the call work and even after the call work called absent and again at 3.45p.m. also called absent. 1st respondent further recorded that since summons are sent through Registered Post and delivered to the petitioner herein and even after giving the petitioner ample opportunity for appearance, the petitioner failed to appear, and adjourned the matter to 19.02.2024 on which date P.W.1 filed affidavit and Exs.P.1 to P.28 were marked and learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent reported no further evidence and adjourned the matter to 01.03.2024 for arguments. On 01.03.2024, 1st respondent heard the arguments of the 2nd respondent and reserved the matter. Ultimately on 18.03.2024, 1st respondent passed final order in R.C.No.17 of 2022.

4. According to the petitioner herein, it came to know about the said order dated 18.03.2024, enquired with the registry and filed an application vide I.A. No.41 of 2024 in R.C.No.17 of 2024 to condone the delay of 64 days in filing application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.03.2024 in R.C.No.17 of 2022. It is also contended by the petitioner herein that learned counsel for respondent No. 2 refused to accept the notice in the said application on 22.06.2024. On 24.06.2024, 2nd respondent has filed execution petition vide E.P.No.16 of