HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 1415 OF 2010 Thursday, the First day of April, Two Thousand and Ten Between Mr. Joseph Petitioner AND K.Anil Kumar Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 1415 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Sec. 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1961 seeks to assail the order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, rejecting IA No. 278 of 2010 filed under Rule 109 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice to advance the date of hearing of IA No. 691 of 2009 from 9.4.2010 to 23.3.2010, filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 25 days in preferring RASR No. 8916 of 2009, against the order dated 30.6.2009 passed in R.C. No. 121 of 2007 by the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, seeking eviction of the petitioner – tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground of willful default and bonafide requirement. The court below rejected the said petition observing that there was no urgency to advance the application in IA No. 691 of 2009 inasmuch the appeal S.R. was filed with a delay and since the petitioner counsel had not reported ready on the last date of hearing. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed inter alia contending that the observation of the court below that there was no urgency to advance the matter notwithstanding the fact that E.P No. 6 of 2010 was filed and delivery was ordered with police aid and, therefore, the court below ought to have advanced the case and granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the said E.P. As can be seen from the order impugned, IA No. 691 of 2009 seeking to condone the delay of 25 days in preferring appeal stood listed on 9.4.2010 i.e. hardly a week hereafter. The contention that E.P. was filed and delivery was ordered, is not elucidated or substantiated by any material evidence. Therefore, without delving further on the merits or otherwise, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate his rights before the court below, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari April 1, 2010 MAS