LAWS(APH)-1984-2-27

MEDIKONDURI PRABHUDASS Vs. ABDUL KAREEM

Decided On February 16, 1984
MEDIKONDURI PRABHUDASS Appellant
V/S
ABDUL KAREEM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the landlords. They filed an Execution Petition to execute the decree in ABA No 57/68. It was filed on October 23, 1979. There is a delay of 73 days in presentation of that Execution Petition and, therefore, they filed an application to condone the delay under proviso to Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, for short, 'the Rules'. The lower Tribunal dismissed the application. Against that order, the present C R P. has been filed.

(2.) In the application for condonation of the delay, it is stated that the last day for filing the Execution Petition was August 14 1979. The 2nd petitioner stated that his mother, aged about 78 years, was seriously ailing and was undergoing treatment under one Dr. Prabhakar Reddy, at Hyderabad from first week of July 1979. He further states that his brother is working at Avanigadda as Supervisor in P W D. He lost his wife about two years prior to the date of application and he has children whose ages are ranging from 2 to 7 years and there are no assistants to look after them. As a result, he could not come and file the application within the time. In support thereof, he examined himself as P W. 1 and he got the documents Exs A-1 to A-7 marked. The petitioner also filed the medical certificate issued by the doctor, dated October 19, 1979, in which Dr, Prabhakar Reddy, resident of Gunfoundry, Hyderabad stated that Medikonduru Deva Krupamn a, monther of Mr. Swami Doss was under his treatment from first week of July, 1979 for 'para plegia and allegic demittities'. He also stated that she developed bed-sores since 1979 and she requires constant attention, as she was unable to use her limbs. The respondents filed a counter denying the allegations but, did not adduce any evidence in support there of.

(3.) On a consideration of the evident, the Rent controller has taken a view that the limitation begins to run from the date of dismissal of C R P. 2158/74 i e , September 25, 1975 and since the application was filed on October 23, 1979, there is an in-ordinate delay of more than 3 years in filing the application and the delay has not been properly explained. According to the lower court, after excluding certain period, the delay is 16 months i e, from 8-6-1978 except seven days between April 20, 1979 to April 27,1979. Therefore, it held that there are no valid gounds to condone the delay in filing the Execution application.