THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5354 of 2008 Dated. 08–07-2010 Between: M. Ravikanth and others. …Petitioners Vs. Smt. Jhansi Laxmi …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5354 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The revision petitioners are tenants who suffered an order dated 27-09-2006 in R.C.No. 108 of 2004 before the learned Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVIII Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. The respondent/landlord filed Rent Control Case under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking fixation of fair rent. The revision petitioners were paying Rs.1,000-00 per mensum for the scheduled premises and the learned Rent Controller directed payment of Rs.2,500-00 per mensum. Thereagainst the revision petitioners preferred an appeal in R.A.Sr.No. 346 of 2007 with a delay of 68 days in preferring the appeal. Condonation of the delay was sought in I..No. 42 of 2007 on the ground that the certified copy of the order of the learned Rent Controller was misplaced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants/tenants. The Court below by the impugned order dated 15-04-2008 rejected I.A.No. 42 of 2007 on the ground that misplacement of certified copy of the order is indicative of lack of diligence. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously pleads that the misplacement of the certified copy of the order in the Rent Control Case was a genuine event and that as the appeal was filed nevertheless with only a delay of 68 days, the delay may be condoned in the interests of justice on some reasonable terms so as to enable the revision petitioners/appellants/tenants to pursue the appeal on merits. Sri R. Satyanarayana Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord contests this application and states in addition that the premises was already vacated by the revision petitioners/tenants and the respondent/landlord was put in possession of the petition schedule mulgies. In the facts and circumstances of the case however as the Court considers it appropriate to enable the petitioners/tenants to pursue the substantive statutory remedy of appeal on merits, this Court is inclined to condone the not so abnormal, delay of 68 days in preferring the appeal – R.A.Sr.No. 346 of 2007 – on condition that the petitioners/tenants shall pay the respondent/landlord an amount of Rs.1,000-00 (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs for allowing of I.A.No. 42 of 2007. The costs shall be paid by way of an account payee demand draft within a period of one week from today, drawn in favour of the respondent/landlord by one or more of the petitioners and handedover to the learned counsel for the respondent Sri R. Satyanarayana Reddy, who shall pass a receipt such payment. On presentation of the receipt of the payment issued the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord Sri R. Satyanarayana Reddy before the Court below, I.A.No. 42 of 2007 in R.A.Sr.No. 346 of 2007 shall be deemed to have been allowed and the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad shall proceed to adjudicate upon the substantive appeal on its merits. On the default in paying the amount of costs as directed above, this revision fails and would stand dismissed. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ___________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 08-07-2010 Pvks/*