NEW MATCHING CENTRE Vs. BANKATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are tenants, in respect of non-residential premises, owned by the deceased-1st respondent. The latter filed R.C.No.398 of 2001, for eviction of the petitioners from the premises bearing D.No. 14-4-394, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement. The application was resisted by the petitioners. Through its order dated 27-9-2003, the learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C., and directed eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed R.A.No.290 of 2003, before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st respondent- landlord died in September 2005. The petitioners did not take immediate steps, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-landlord, on record. At a subsequent stage, they filed I.A.No.90 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 175 days, in filing an application to set aside the abatement, and to bring the respondents 2 to 5 herein, on record. The respondents opposed the application, and the lower appellate Court dismissed the IA, on 15-6-2006. Hence, this CRP.

(2.) Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the delay in filing the applications to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-sole respondent in the appeal, on record, occurred on account of the fact that the petitioners were not aware of the date of death, or the particulars of the legal representatives. He submits that the Counsel for the sole respondent, in the appeal, did not file a memo or give any intimation, as required under Rule 10A of Order XXII C.P.C.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 5, on the other hand, submits that the premises is part of the residential house, in which the respondents are residing, and that the 1st respondent died in the said premises. He contends that the petitioners are not only aware of the death of the deceased, but also participated in various ceremonies performed thereafter. He submits that the proceedings under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for short "the Act", are governed by separate set of rules, and Rule 10A of Order XXII C.P.C. has no application to it.