IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.352 OF 2010 Between: Sadaq Ali ..... Petitioner AND Mohammed Mazher ..... Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.352 OF 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is directed against the order, dated 18.11.2009, in I.A.No.830 of 2009 in I.A.No.245 of 2008 in R.C.No.340 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the respondent herein to extend the time for complying with the order, dated 02.07.2009, passed in I.A.No.245 of 2008 in R.C.No.340 of 2008, on the file of the same Court, by condoning the delay, was allowed. 2. The trial Court allowed the petition in I.A.No.245 of 2008 in R.C.No.340 of 2008 directing the respondent herein to pay or deposit all arrears of rent from December, 2008 till June, 2009 at the rate of R.750/- per month into Court within one month from the date of passing of that order and also further directed to pay or deposit future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month from July 2009 onwards into Court till the disposal of the main Rent Control Case on or before 10th of every month regularly. The period of one month expired by 02.08.2009. The respondent herein filed the present petition in I.A.No.830 of 2009 in I.A.No.245 of 2008 in R.C.No.340 of 2008 for extension of time for complying with the said order, dated 02.07.2009. That petition was allowed by extending time by condoning the delay of one and a half month. 3. The respondent herein submits that he was not aware of the order, dated 02.07.2009, and as such he could not comply with the same and due to bona fide mistake, it has happened. 4. Thereafter, the respondent herein has complied with the conditional order, dated 02.07.2009. In view of the fact that the amount has been deposited by the respondent herein, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the petition duly granting some more time to deposit the admitted rents and hence, the order under challenge needs no interference. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. However, since the R.C.C. is of the year 2008, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the R.C.C. as early as possible subject to other part heard and old cases. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 7th March, 2011 KL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.352 OF 2010 Date: 7th March, 2011 KL