ABDUL RASHEED DIED Vs. ABDUL LATEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed in R.A.No.240/98 dated 24-10-2000 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order passed in LA.No.483/ 98 in R.C.No.473/96 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, at Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Waheed, father-in-law and son-in-law were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in R.C.No.473/96 and one Salam was impleaded as 3rd respondent in the said Rent Control proceedings. The said 1st and the 2nd respondents filed an application LA. No.483/98 to condone the delay of 70 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte eviction order dated 27-4-1998 and the same was dismissed by the Court of first instance on 1-9-1998 and aggrieved by the same R.A. No.240/98 was filed and since Abdul Rasheed died, in I.A. No.540/2000 on 28-6-2000 Aktar Begum, wife of Abdul Waheed, who is also the daughter of Abdul Rasheed was brought on record and the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, by the order dated 24-10-2000 had dismissed R.A.No.240/98 and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil revision petition is filed.

(3.) Sri M.Basith AH Yavar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had made elaborate submissions and had drawn my attention to the proceedings in R.C.No.473/96, from the date of first hearing till the ex parte order of eviction was made against them and also to subsequent events. The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that respondents 1 and 2 in the R.C. had not been served at all and 3rd respondent alone was served and the learned Counsel had pointed out several dates and also the mistakes committed by the Court below, which may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter. However, it can be taken note that the matter was adjourned several times and steps had not been taken, but ultimately on 1-5-1997 steps had been taken and publication was made on 16-6-1997 and the matter was adjourned to 27-7-1997. The 3rd respondent in the main R.C. alone entered into compromise on 27-4-1998 and the 3rd respondent requested only three days time for vacating the premises. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 in the main R.C. had no knowledge about the ex parte order of eviction dated 27-4-1998 and an application was filed on 23-7-1998, which is no doubt within the period of limitation as per their date of knowledge, but however by way of abundant caution an application to condone delay was filed and it was erroneously dismissed. It was also stated that in view of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there is no delay. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Rule 22 sub-rule (4) and also Rule 8 clause (3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, in short called "Rules" hereinafter.