The High Court · 2025

Order

This Civil Revision Petition is liled 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 ol-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. l'he t-acts 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. '[he said R.A- was allowed by the leamed Chief Judge, City Smatl Causes Court, Hyderabad on 02.03.1998 observing that the petitioner No.2 in R.C.No.398 of I985 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. I - Mr.Shiva Kumar. But they were not his sons. Mr.Shiva Kumar only had a daughter by name [ndira and Mr.Shiva Kumar died during the pendency of R.C.No.398 of 1985. but his legal heir Smt.Indira was not +. 2 I)r.GRR, J crp_l 785_2019 brought on record and the case continued in his absence. As such, the erricr-ion petition filed by Shiva Kumar, his brother and his rwo 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. I before the I Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad fbr eviction of the respondent herein. An ex-pafte eviction order was passed on

19.08.1999. Basing on the ex-parrejudgment 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. r'he petitioner starled 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 allorved initially. I.A.No.699 of 2000 filed under Secrion 144 of cpc for restirurion ol the schedule property rvas 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.3O of 2006 before the learned Additional Chief Judge, Citi, 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 tu,o months. Against the said judgment, C,R.P.No.2397 of 2009 was preferred by the petitioner - lancllord and I I Dr.GRR, J crp_1785 2019 the same was dismissed on 08.06.2011. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed EP (SR).No.4 404 of 2012 on 07.12.2012. The said EP (SR) was returned with ceftain objections on the same day and the same was re-submitted vide EP (SR).No.4533 of 2Ol2 on 14.12.2012. Then again E.P. was retumed 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.LIr. along with an application for condonation of delay vide E.A.No.8 of 2017. The said E.A. rvas allowed by the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad condoning the Celay on 03.06.2019. i. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein - landlord filed this revlsron petltlon.

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

5. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioners contended that admittedly C.R.P.No.2397 of 2009 was dismissed on 08.06.201 1 and the respondent herein had not filed any E.P. within six months from the date of passing of the order by the High Court. The six months period was lapsed on 07.12.2011 itself. The respondent herein had not filed any EP along with the condone delay petition even on 0l .12.2012. When he filed EP (SR).No.4404 of 2012 in the year 2012, I 4 Dr.GRR. J crp_1785_2019 he filed the alleged condone delay petition on 02.A1.2017 that too seeking to condone the delay of 364 days only. The same was contrary to lar.v and procedure. The respondent ought to have filed the condone delay petition from

07.12.2011 to 02.01.2017 i.e. for 5 years 26 days delay. The lower court ought to have retumed the condone delay petition at the stage of admission itself, but committed a mistake in allowing the petition. There was no explanation for the delay of 5 years 26 days. The affidavit filed by the respondent vrde E.A.No.8 of 2017 would disclose that the respondent shifted his house from Shalibanda to Attapur in the year 2012 and the papers were misplaced. He aiso stated that he suffered from various ailments and as such could not trace the papers in time and hand over to his counsel for fiiing in the Court. The respondent herein did not mention in his affidavit lor missing of file from 2012 - 2016. After returning EP (SR).No.4533 of 2012, the court beio,,v gave a new SR number 1488 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016. E.A.No.8 of 2017 was filed in EP (SR).No.4533 of 2012, which was unwarranted. The court below had not appreciated its own order. As per Rule 23(l) of Rent Control Rules, i96i, sir months time was given from the date of order for filing the EP and the Rent Controller had to satisS,' himself with regard to the sufficient cause for not preferring EP within such period. The courl below did not follow Rule 23(2) also. The affidavit was not showing sufficient cause for delay of 5 years 26 days in hling the condone delay petition and to re-submit EP (SR).No.4533 of 5 Dr.GRR, J crp 1785_2019

2012. The court below failed to appreciate that at present there was no building structure existing and the respondent also failed to plead about the existence of the structures in the schedule property. As such, the order under revision was Iiable to be set aside.

6. Leamed counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the order sought to be executed was in the nature of execution of the restitution order under Section 144 and 151 ofCPC, 1908, as such Rule 23(l) ofthe Rent Control Rules is not applicable. The limitation for filing the execution petition rvas govemed by Articles 64 & 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Filing of Section 5 limitation petition under Section 23(1) of the Rent Control Act was only under the constraint circumstances as the EP was repeatedly returned. Only under protest and for registration of EP, as the matter was being dragged on and under a mistaken legal advice, the respondent filed E.A.No.8 of 2017 for condonation of delay, which was not at all required. Even if the property was demolished under the ex-parte orders in the Rent Control matter, restitution could be granted and the said orders also became final as per the orders in C.R.P.No.2397 of 2009 dated 08.06.2011. The tenant had got right for restitution of property. Filing of revision by the petitioner - landlord was not niaintainable under Section 22 against the orders passed for condonation of delay under Rule 23(1) of the Rent Control rules and relied upon a 5-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble eO79?"9i1Mahijibhai Mohanbhai Barot v. \ 6 Dr.GRR,.l crp_1785_2019 Patet Manibhai Gokalbhai and Othersr and of the High Court of Delhi in Rama Saroop v. Daljit Singh2.

7. Now the points for consideration are: (l) Whether a revision petition is maintainable against allowing the condonation of delay petition under Rule 23( I ) of Rent Control Rules? (2) When the property was demolished and not available, whether restitution petition, which was allowed, is enforceable? (3) Whether a petition for condonation of delay was required to be filed along with the EP for numbering it and the order passed by the trial coun allo\"ing the same is in accordance with law (or) procedure contemplated under Rent Control Act & Rules?

8. Point No.l: Whether a revision petition is maintainable against allowing the condonation of delay petition under Rule 23(I) of Rent Control Rules? Section 22 of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 deals with High Court's power to revision. It empowers the High Court to review orders or proceedings passed by the Controller or the Appellate Authoritv under the Act. ' AIR 1965 SC 1477 '? All{ 1995 Dethi 351 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_1785 2019 9 Section 22 of theTelangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act (fbr shoft "Rent Control Act"), 1960 reads as follows: "22.Revision.- ( I ) l'he ltigh Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggricved party. call lor and examine the records relating to any order passcd or proceeding taken under this Act by the Controller in exccution under Section 15 or by the Appellate Authority on appeal under Section 20' fbr rhe purpose of satisfuing itself as to the legatity, regularity or proprietl' of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thcreto as it thinks fit (2) The costs ofand incident to all proceedings before the High Court undcr sub-section ( I ) shall be in its discretion."

10. Thus. as per the above Section, the High court can call lor and examtne the records relating to any order passed under the Act by the Controller or the proceeding taken under the Act by the Controller in execution under Section l5 or b1, the Appellate Authority on an appeal under section 20 lor the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regutarity or propriety of such order or proceeding- I 1. As per section 15 of the Rent control Act, 1960, every order made under Section 10. Section 12, Section [3 or Section 14 and every order passed in appeal under Section 20 or on revision under Section 22 and every order as to costs under Section 21 shall be executed by the Controller' I / 8 Dr.CRR, J crp_1?E5_2019 Provided that an order passed in execution under this Section shall not be subject to an appeal, but shall be subject to revision under Section 22. t2 Section l0 pertains to eviction oftenants, Section l2 pertains to recover) of possession by landlord for repairs, alterations or addditions or for re- construction, Section 13 pertains to recovery of possession by tandlord for repairs, alterations or additions or for re-construction of building in respect of which the Govemment is the tenant and Section l4 pertains to the orders passed by the Controller when the landlord interferes with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant I3. The present case does not fall under any ofthese sections. But filed for execution ofthe order passed for restitution of the schedule property, which was demolished inspite ofthe status quo orders.

14. Thus, though it does not fall under the order passed by the Controller in execution under Section 15, falls under the broader scope ol the rvordings ol Section 22, where a revision power was granted to the High Court to call for. and examine the records relating to 'any order'passed by the Controller or the Appellate Authority. The word "any order" is broad in narure and the I{igh Court has revisional jurisdiction to examine the tegality, regularitl. or proprietv of all the orders passed by the Controller or the Appellate Authority. Even interlocutory orders are revisable if they substantially afTect the rights of the \ 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_1785_2019 parties passed without jurisdiction. The order condoning the delay is not a mere procedural direction, but it re-opens right to seek enforcement. Such an order has consequences and aff-ects the landlord or tenant's right to resist or proceed w ith execution. I 5. 'lhe [{on'ble Apex Court in several cases reiterated that revisional -jurisdiction is broader where sub-ordinate Tribunals act without jurisdiction or illegally and that a rcvision under Section 22 is maintainable even against certain interlocutory orders if they have fina[ effect on the parlies' rights. As such, a revision petition is maintainable against allowing the condbnation of delay petition filed by the respondent - tenant under Rule 23(l) of the Rent Control Rules.

16. Point No.2: When the property was demolished and not available, whether restitution petition. rvhich was allowed, is enforceable? lt rvas the contention of the revision petitioner that the property was demolished and the same was not available, as such, the restitution petition could not be enflorced.

17. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the rcstitution petition could be enforced even when the property was not available 10 Dr.GRR,.l crp_1785_2019 and relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Rama Saroop v. Daljit Singh (cited supra).

18. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rama Saroop v. Daljit Singh (cited supra) is a case where the landlord evicted the tenant in execution of ex parte eviction decree but later on the eviction decree is set aside and that order has become final holding that the landlord becomes liable to restore possession of the premises to the tenant. It holds that: "The effect of setting aside the decree is that there is no eviction decree against the tenant and therefbre, the landlorci canaot claim or rei:rir, possession of the tenanted premises. If the landlord. in ordcr to rctain possession of tenanted premises with him all along takcs a f'alse stand about having let out thc premises after obtaining possession in execution of thc cr. parte decree against the tenant and his stand of inducting new tcnant is totally false and sham there is no question of any evidence being recorded on such a stand. Even ifthe tenancy created by the landlord vras propcr anrl not sham, the inductee or the new tenant would be liable to be dispossessed as per the law. The new tenant r.r.ould be deriving his title to the prcmiscs only from the landlord and if the landlord's own title was defectir,e or not legal, he could nor bestow a better title on the alleged tenant. Even ila frcsh tenancy was created by landlord in flavor of a third party u,ho had no knowledge of litigation between landlord and the present tenant. on ihe e\ parte eviction deoree in favor of landkrrd being set aside. hc was bound io restore possession ol the premises to the tenant judgment-debtor. If the nc.ir tenant allegedly inducted in the premises had no right to rrrnain in possession under law, no evidence whether about the ncw tcnancv being. bona hde or not was releva.nt or material and there could be no occasion lbr remand ofthe case for delermination of those issues." 11 Dr.GRR, J crp_1785 2019

19. Thus, the Delhi High Court in the above case held that the landlord becomes liable to restore possession of the premises to the tenant even if a new tenant is inducted into the premises and that the new tenant would be having no right to remain in possession under law and that the effect of setting aside the decree was that there was no eviction decree against the tenant. It is not a case rvhere the property was not available.

20. As the property was demolished, physical restitution is not possible. Horvever, the order of the Court in R.A.No.30 of 2006, which was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2397 of 2009 would hold that the petitioner was entitled to restore the possession under Section 144 of CPC even though there were no structures existing as on the date of filing the petition, The landlord was directed to re-deliver the possession of the land to the tenant within two months lrom the date of the said judgment. The Court might be right in ordering restitution if it considers that the demolition was done by the landlord illegally or highhandedly. Horvever, when the property was not available, some compensation or re-construction could be ordered, but not delivery of possession of the land to the tenant. However, as this Court could not go into the merits of the said order, which became final, now, we cannot go into the enlorceability of the said order / / 72 Dr.CRR, J crp_17t15_2019

21. Point No.3: Whether a petition for condonation of delay was required to be filed along with the EP for numbering it and the order passed by the trial court allowing the same is in accordance with law (or) procedure contemplated under Rent Control Act & Rules? The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that Rule 23(l) of the Rent Control Act was not applicable, the limitation for filing the execution petition was governed by futicle 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 Only under the constraint circumstances, when the EP was repeatedly retumed, for registration of EP, under a mistaken legai advice, the petition w'as flled fbr condonation of delay and relied upon the 5-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahijibhai Mohanbhai Barot v. Patel Manibhai Gokalbhai and Others (cited supra).

22. Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with suits for possession o1' immovable property based on prior possession, not title. It dictates a 12-1'ear limitation period from the date of dispossession.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench judgment considered the issue whether a restitution petition was a miscellaneolls, non- execution matter barred by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and by the majority of four Judges classified-Section 144 restitution applications AS execution proceedings, as such Article 182 o1'the Limitation Act, i908 applies 13 Dr.GRR. J crp_1785_2019 The majority judgment interpreted the legislative intent and structure of the CPC and placed Section 144 of CPC in miscellaneous but functionally aligns with execution matters. The majority view defines Section 144 of CPC as part of execution of appellate decrees, for which three years limitation was provided under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The said judgment stood as foundational authoritv tn understanding restitution under CPC as akin to execution. But, however, the present order was an order ofrestitution passed by the Rent Controller under Rule 23(1) ofRent Control Rules, 1961, but not under CPC.

24. Rule 23 of the Rent Control Rules, 1961 is extracted for ready reference: ''23. (i) Every application for the execution of orders passed under this Act shall be in writing signed and verified by the decree-holder and filed before the Controller r,'.ithin six months lrom the date of the order accompanied by a ccrtihed copy of the order concerned together with the necessary process fee: Provided that an application may be admitted after the specihed period if the applicant satisfies the Controlier that he has sufficient cause for not prefening the application within such period. (2) On reccipt ol an application for thc execution of orders as provided by sub-rule (1), the Controller shall ascertain whether the requirements have been complied, and il they have not been complied, the Controller may reiect the application or may allow the defect to be remedied within the time to be lixed b1 hinr. t4 Dr.CRR..I crp_l785_2019 (3) Where the application is admitted, the Controller shall enter in rhe proper register a note of the application of the date on whioh it was made shall subject to lhe provisions hereinafter containcd allow execution oi orders. (4) Where rhe application for execution is made by or against the legal representati!'e o1'a party to the order. the Controller shall issue a noticc to the person or persons concemed directing him to show cause as to why the application should not be complied with. (5) An order of eviction passed under Sections 10. 12, and 13 shall be executed by eviction the persons against whom the order was passed or anr other person bound by thc said order and by delivering the vacant possession of the buitding in rcgard to which the order was passed either to the person in whose lavour the order was passed or to such person as he may appoint to take delivery on his behalf. (6) Where possession of any building is to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound by the order of eviction does not aftbrd frec access. the Controller or through his subordinates may after giving reasonable waming and facility lor withdrawing any ltoman who aocording to custom does not appear in public, remove or open any lock or bolt or break open any door. or do any other act necessary for putting any person entitled for possession in pursuance ofthe order ofeviction. (7) If such execution is rcsisted and obstructed by any person other than the person against whom order ofeviction was passed, the Controller may hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if he is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, and that such resistancc and obstruction still continues shall issue a warrant to evict the said pcrson by force and deliver the possession of the building to the person entitled for possession in pursuancc of the order ol'eviction. and if he is satisfied that the resistance or the obstruction rvas occasioned by an1 person other than the person against u4rcnrorder of eviction was passed claiming 15 Dr.GRR, J crp_17E5_2019 in good laith to be in the possession of the building on his ou,n account or on account of some person other than thc pcrson the against whom order of eviction was passed. he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person. (8) If an order passed under Section l4 or Section 2l has not becn obeyed by the party conccmed. the same may bc cnforced by the attachment of his properly or by detention in Civil Prison or by both or by any other manner, suitable in the opinion of the Controllcr."

25. Under Rule 23(l) of Rent Control Rules, a limitation of six months is prescribed for filing the EPs. When the EP was not filed within the prescribed period, it has to be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay specifuing sufficient cause for not preferring the EP within such period. lf the respondent's counsel could satisry the Court that Rule 23(l) of the Rent Control Rules was not applicable and that he could maintain the EP without filing a petition for condonation of delay, he is at liberty to resort to the same by withdrawing the present EP. However, he resorted to file the EP under Rule 23(l) of the Rent Control Rules read with Section 15,l of CPC to condone the delay of I year or 364 days in filing the EP. ln the affidavit filed along with the petition, the respondent stated that he fited the EP after the dismissal of C.R.P.No.2397 of 2009 on 08.06.201 l. ln the year 2012, he shifted his house from Shalibanda to Attapur and in the said process misplaced all the papers Apart from that, he was suffering from various ailments and could not trace the papers in time and handover to the counsel for filing in the Court. After / / ---" 16 Dr.GRR,.l c rp_1785_2019 thorough search, the same were traced and thereafter EP was filed on 07 .12.2012, as such there was a delay of one year in filing the EP.

26. The said affidavit was filed on 02.01 .2017 in EP (SR).No.4404 of 2012. As rightly contended by the leamed counsel for the revision petitioners, the EP has to be filed within a period of six months from the date of passing of the order by the High Court in C.R.P.No.2397 of 2009. Six months period would be lapsed on 07.12.201l, but the EP was filed on 07.12.2012 with a delay of one and half year without filing any condone delay petition. The condone delay petition was filed on 02.0i .2017 i.e. after a period of more than five years. But there was no explanation given by the respondent (petitioner) for the delay ol more than 5 years in filing the condone delay application. Though the affidavit was filed in EP(SR).No.4404 of 2012, the order was passed by the lower courl in EP(SR).No.4533 of 2012. The Court below has given a new SR number and the order was passed in new SR number instead of the old SR number. As no sufficient cause was shown by the respondent - petitioner for condoning the delay of more than 5 years in filing the affidavit along with the EP and the delay was not even explained properly for I year 6 months in filing EP (SR).No.4533 in the year 2012, the petition is defective, as the entire period of delav from the expiry of limitation till the actual filing of the delay petition must be properly explained. The Hon'ble Apex Coun in several cases held that Law of 1,7 Dr.GRR, J crp_1785 2019 Limitation is founded on a public policy. A liberal approach in condoning the delay should not override the need to show sufficient cause for the entire delay. \

27. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Olficerr also the Hon'ble I Apex Court held that ignorance or inadvertence is not a sufficient cause unless ( cvery dayrs delay is explained.

18. The delay condonation petition must specifically account for the entire period of delay. Filing the condonarion of delay perition after 5 years explaining the delay of only for one year is not permissible. As the same was incomplete, the same ought to have been rejected by the Oourt below. When the affidavit was filed in EP (SR).No.4404 of 2012, passing of order in IrP (SR).No.a533 of 2012, is also considered as erroneous. As such, it is considered fit to set aside the docket order passed by the learned ll Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in E.A.No.8 of 2017 in EP (SR).No .4533 of 2012 in R.C.No.304 of 1999. 29 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the docket order passed by the leamed II Additional Renr Controller, Hyderabad in E.A.No.8 of 2017 in EP (SR).No.4533 of 2012 in R.C.No.304 of 1999. No order as to costs. (1013) l4 scc 8l As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUry REGISTRAR Dr.CRR,,I crp_I785_2019 \ To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. VORA RAVI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. SHARAD SANGHI Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KUL/PSL I \rlE S14 ,€ o ( (( C) o 2 5 JUN 2t6 * oFr HIGH COURT DATED:10/06/2025 W ORDER CRP.No.1785 of 2019 ALLOWING TI{E CRP WITI{OUT COSTS a lr(