THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1785 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - landlord (died)

represented by his legal representatives - petitioners 2 to 4 aggrieved by the docket order dated 03.06.2019 passed in E.A.No.8 of 2017 in EPSR.No.4533 of 2012 in R.C.No.304 of 1999 by the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for allowing the petition filed by the respondent - tenant by condoning the delay of 364 days in filing EP (SR).No.4533 of 2012.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, who was the landlord filed R.C.No.398 of 1985 for eviction of respondent - tenant before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on the ground of willful default and the said R.C. was allowed on 17.01.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent - tenant preferred R.A.No.53 of 1995. The said R.A. was allowed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad on 02.03.1998 observing that the petitioner No.2 in R.C.No.398 of 1985 died on 22.10.1985 prior to filing of R.C.No.398 of 1985 itself. The petitioners 3 and 4 were shown as sons of petitioner No.1 - Mr.Shiva Kumar. But they were not his sons. Mr.Shiva Kumar only had a daughter by name Indira and Mr.Shiva Kumar died during the pendency of R.C.No.398 of 1985, but his legal heir Smt.Indira was not brought on record and the case continued in his absence. As such, the eviction petition filed by Shiva Kumar, his brother and his two sons in R.C.No.398 of 1985 was liable to be dismissed. Thereafter, R.C.No.304 of 1999 was filed by present petitioner No.1 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the respondent herein. An ex-parte eviction order was passed on 19.08.1999. Basing on the ex-parte judgment and decree, the petitioner herein filed E.P.No.39 of 1999. The same was allowed on 01.11.1999 and possession was delivered by vacating the respondent from the suit schedule property. The petitioner started demolishing the property on the same day after obtaining possession. The respondent immediately filed applications to restitute possession of the schedule property and also to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and to maintain status quo in respect of the schedule property. I.A.No.523 of 1999 filed by the respondent to maintain status quo was allowed initially. I.A.No.699 of 2000 filed under Section 144 of CPC for restitution of the schedule property was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 12.04.2005, as the property was not available. Against the said dismissal, the respondent preferred R.A.No.30 of 2006 before the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said R.A was allowed and restitution was ordered on 13.04.2009 directing the landlord to re-deliver the possession of the schedule property to the respondent herein within two months. Against the said judgment, C.R.P.No.2397 of 2009 was preferred by the petitioner - landlord and the same was dismissed on 08.06.2011. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed EP (SR).No.4404 of 2012 on 07.12.2012. The said EP (SR) was returned with certain objections on the same day and the same was re-submitted vide EP (SR).No.4533 of 2012 on 14.12.2012. Then again E.P. was returned with some objections and was re-submitted again vide EP (SR).No.1488 of 2016. The Court Section again took objections for not filing the said petition within time. Thereafter, the EP (SR) was re-submitted by the respondent – D.Hr. along with an application for condonation of delay vide E.A.No.8 of 2017. The said E.A. was allowed by the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad condoning the delay on 03.06.2019.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein - landlord filed this revision petition.

4. Heard Sri Vora Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent - tenant.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that admittedly C.