THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3961 OF 2011 Dated:20.09.2011 Between: Kanuri Surya Venkata Ramanamma and another .. Petitioners And Betha Rama Rao .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3961 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of residential premises in Rajahmundry. It was let out to the respondent and his mother one Betha Seethamma. Alleging that the tenants defaulted in payment of rents from May, 1998 to November, 1998, the petitioners instituted a Rent Control Case being R.C.C.No.24 of 1999 under Section 10(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal, Rajahmundry. It was allowed on 15.02.2005. The petitioners then filed an Execution Application being E.A.No.39 of 2006 for condonation of delay in filing E.P. It was ordered ex parte and execution proceeding was registered as E.P.No.42 of 2007. The respondent herein then moved E.A.No.43 of 2007 under Rule 8(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.04.2007 in E.A.No.39 of 2006. In his application, he alleged that his mother Betha Seethamma died before the decree was passed; his counsel filed a memo in the Court reporting the death of his mother and also informing that there are no other legal heirs; and the respondent alone should be treated as legal representative of Betha Seethamma. The learned Rent Controller allowed the said application on 09.08.2007 imposing costs of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioners/landlords moved this Civil Revision Petition on 20.11.2010 after more than three years. The petitioners’ counsel contends that against the order dated 09.08.2007 in E.A.No.43 of 2007, the petitioners filed appeal being R.A.No.9 of 2007 before the appellate Tribunal; the same was dismissed as not maintainable; then the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.4604 of 2010 which was withdrawn and then the petitioners filed the instant Civil Revision Petition. He would also urge that the learned Rent Controller erred in condoning the delay. The plea of the respondent/tenant was that there was no proper opportunity given to him when the Rent Controller condoned the delay in filing the E.P. He also alleged that the petitioners suppressed the death of his mother and obtained decree against a dead person and the same is liable to be set aside. These contentions weighed with the learned Rent Controller. It is well settled that when the Court or the Tribunal, subordinate to the High Court, exercises the jurisdiction in condoning the delay, ordinarily High Court would not interfere with such matters. The order of the Rent Controller is supported by reasons and it does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 20.09.2011 KH