J.Sridhar vs Smt.Shakuntala Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 3432 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1815 OF 2019

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by respondent No. 4

aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2019 made in I.A.No. 670 of

2018 in R.A(SR)No. 2380 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judge,

City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. By the impugned order,

the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act was dismissed rejecting the request for

condoning the delay of 528 days in filing the appeal under

Section 4(1) of Telangana Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction)

Control Act, 1960, to set aside the ex parte decree dated

14.02.2017.

2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner

herein is the tenant and the respondent No. 1 herein is the

landlord. The other respondents are also tenants. The landlord

filed R.C.No. 174 of 2014 against the tenants, respondent Nos. 2

to 4 herein, seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the

schedule mulgi i.e., mulgi bearing No. 15-9-251 consisting of a

shop, a tin-shed with an open space at the ground floor along

with first floor. According to the landlord, the tenant, revision

petitioner has been depositing monthly rents at Rs.100/- to the

credit of RC No. 139 of 2011 which has been instituted at his

MGP,J CRP No. 1815 of 2019

instance. According to him, the rent is a very meager one as the

schedule mulgi is located in a busy commercial area and

therefore, sought for fixation of fair rent at Rs.45,000/- per

month. On contest by the tenants, the rent controller partly

allowed the RC duly fixing the monthly rent of mulgi at

Rs.36,160/- per month i.e., at the rate of Rs.40/- per square

feet payable from July, 2014 onwards with a further direction to

enhance the said rent @ Rs.10/- for every three years

compounding from July 2014. The arrears of rent from July

2014 till January 2014 was directed to be deposited within six

months from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the

tenant, respondent No. 4 in the R.C., has preferred an appeal

before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

As there was delay in preferring the appeal, he has filed the

impugned I.A. under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to

condone delay of 528 days in preferring the appeal. It was the

case of the tenant that he could not appear before the Rent

Controller on 14.02.2017 as the notice was sent to incorrect

address. He had not received the summons as he is not the

resident of Saroornagar C/o.H.No. 13-2-969, Puranapool,

Hyderabad. In fact, he is residing at H.No.20-73, SKR Nagar,

Saroornagar, RR District-60. As the notices were sent to

incorrect address, he could not receive the notices in the RC

MGP,J CRP No. 1815 of 2019

and could not represent the matter, resulting into the passing of

ex parte orders on 14.02.2017. It is only when he saw the

paper publication in Surya Daily that was taken out by the

landlord in O.S. No. 182 of 2018 on the file of X Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed for eviction and

recovery of amounts fixed in the R.C., he got the knowledge of

passing of the ex parte decree in the R.C. Thus, there is a delay

of 528 days in filing the appeal to set aside the order and decree

dated 14.02.2017 which is neither wanton nor willful but for the

reasons stated above.

3. Before the lower Appellate Court, the landlord filed his

counter contending that the tenant is well aware of the RC

proceedings. It is also contended that the notices were served

and the same were endorsed by his mother-in-law. It is further

contended that the revision petitioner is negligent in

prosecuting his case all along even though he is having

knowledge of the proceedings. It is lastly contended that the

reasons assigned by the tenant for condoning the delay of 528

days are not convincing and he miserably failed to explain the

day-to-day delay. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

MGP,J CRP No. 1815 of 2019

4. Considering the respective pleadings, the lower appellate

Court dismissed the application by the impugned orders.

Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed the present revision.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

6. The learned counsel for the tenant has firstly contended

that the lower appellate Court ought to have considered that the

tenant came to know about proceedings only after he came

across the publication of notice in Surya daily newspaper on

05.04.2018 taken out by the landlord in respect of eviction

proceedings in O.S. No. 182 of 2018. Secondly, he contended

that the landlord has intentionally furnished the wrong address

and got an endorsement to the effect that the notice in the said

RC was served on the mother-in-law of the tenant. In fact, he

has no such mother-in-law residing in the said address. Lastly,

the learned counsel contended that the justice should not be

defeated for technicalities and therefore, prayed to allow the

revision.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the landlord sought to sustain the impugned order of

the lower appellate Court contending that evidence available on

MGP,J CRP No. 1815 of 2019

record, the lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the

petition and the same needs no interference by this Court.

8. The Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1863 reads as under:

"5 Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.

--Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.-- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section"

9. A plain reading of the above makes it abundantly clear

that if the revision petitioner satisfies the Court with sufficient

cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period, then

the said petition can be allowed.

10. It is pertinent to note that the Rent Controller passed ex

parte decree on 14.02.2017 against the tenant and that

according to the tenant, he came to know about the passing of

the ex parte orders in the RC when he came across the

publication in Surya Daily newspaper on 05.04.2018 that was

taken out in respect of the proceedings in O.S. No. 182 of 2018.

Immediately, he contacted his counsel and after obtaining the

relevant papers of the RC proceedings, he filed the appeal with

MGP,J CRP No. 1815 of 2019

the impugned application to condone the delay of 528 days in

filing the appeal under Section 4(1) of Telangana Building

(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 to set aside the ex

parte orders passed in the R.C. In order to substantiate the

cause for the delay period, he has not filed any documentary

evidence in respect of his residential address i.e., H.No.20-73,

SKR Nagar, Saroornagar, R.R.District. Moreover, the record

discloses that the tenant filed claim petition in E.A.No. 325 of

2013 in E.P.No. 71 of 2007 in O.S.No. 682 of 1992 on the file of

V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, along with

the other tenants claiming the tenancy after the death of

original tenant-J. Narayana and the said applications were

dismissed on contest. That apart, the other tenants are natural

brothers and sons of the original tenant-late J. Narayana and

that one of the tenants i.e., respondent No. 1 is none other than

the uncle of the present tenant. Even the R.C. was contested

not in individual capacity but as common and joint tenants. In

these circumstances and as all the tenants have jointly

contested the proceedings, the present tenant cannot plead

ignorance of passing of the ex parte decree in the R.C.

Furthermore, when one of the tenants i.e., respondent No. 2

herein, has challenged the very same orders made in R.C. No.

174 of 2014, by showing the other tenants, including the

MGP,J CRP No. 1815 of 2019

present tenant, as proforma parties, the tenant herein has not

taken any steps to transpose him as an appellant to contest the

proceedings in the R.C.A. along with the appellant therein, and

it is only when the proceedings therein are coming to an end,

the present appeal is sought to be filed with the condone delay

application, which itself speaks volumes about the attitude and

conduct of the tenant herein in protracting the proceedings.

Hence, the lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the

application holding that there are no merits to condone the

delay and the application is nothing but to protract the

proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The

petitioner/tenant is directed to pay the arrears of rent, as fixed

by the Rent Controller, accrued from July, 2014, within a period

of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order, failing which, the landlord is entitled to initiate execution

proceedings in terms of the Act. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE SMT.M.G.PRIYADARSINI

Date: 31.10.2023 gms

MGP,J CRP No. 1815 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1815 OF 2019

31.10.2023

gms