THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3368 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 13.07.2011 passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2010 in RASR No.11449 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad whereby and where under the learned Chief Judge condoned the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 01.07.2010 passed in R.C.No.120 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. 2 The landlord filed the R.C.No.120 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad seeking for eviction of the petitioner. The said R.C. ended in dismissal on 01.07.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad along with an application in I.A.No.1026 of 2010 to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. The landlord pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay that he went on tour and therefore he could not contact his counsel and after his return from tour, he contacted his counsel and came to know of the dismissal of the R.C. and thereupon he filed the appeal along with the delay condonation petition. The respondent / tenant filed counter resisting the application. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the landlord offered sufficient reason for condoning the delay in presenting the appeal and thereby proceeded to allow the application, by an order dated 13.07.2011. Hence this revision by the tenant. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in this revision. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent / landlord has not offered any sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 131 days and therefore the appellate authority is not justified in condoning the delay. 4 I have gone through the order impugned in this revision. The appellate authority has taken into consideration the age of the landlord and also the reasons offered by him to condone the delay of 131 days. The appellate authority has given cogent and convincing reasons for condoning the delay of 131 days. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the said order warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act. 5 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ SRI B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 14.11.2011 Kvsn