THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1735 of 2010 Order: Consequent to the orders of this Court, passed today in Review CRPMP No. 4624 of 2010, the CRP No. 1735 of 2010 is taken up to review the order of this Court passed in the said CRP, dated 18.06.2010. Heard both the parties. The petitioner herein is the respondent before the lower Court. The respondent herein claiming to be the owner of the property bearing No.6-3-668/14, admeasuring 6.3’ x 10’, situated at Punjagutta, Hyderabad, filed the petition for eviction on the ground that the respondent committed default in payment of rents. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was set ex parte. Admittedly, the sale deed, under which the respondent herein claiming the property, is in respect of House No.6-3-668/11 to 13 only, but as far as House No.6-3- 668/14 is concerned neither of the parties have filed any documents to establish who is the owner of that property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the vendor of the mother-in-law of the respondent P. Sreeramulu retained possession of his property and the same is clear from the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent has been paying municipal taxes and that he is in possession of the property and that after the purchase for the purpose of paying separate municipal taxes for a small room a sub-division of ‘14’ was given and that the petitioner’s mother herself admitted that the respondent is the owner of the property. However, since it is argued that both the properties i.e., the property covered by the suit filed by the mother of the petitioner herein and the property covered by the petitioner in RC No.190 of 2008 were distinct and different, the same has to be decided on appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties. Though it is submitted that the petitioner, in spite of receiving notices, did not appear before the lower Court and was set ex parte, but however, it is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notices were served by registered post with acknowledgment due. He submits that when he applied for certified copy of acknowledgment it was not given to him. Any how, it is always better if the matters have been disposed of on merits. Hence, without giving any opinion on the merits or demerits with regard to rival contentions of the parties, I consider it just and reasonable to recall the earlier order dated 18.06.2010 passed in C.R.P. No. 1735 of 2010 and remand the matter to the learned Rent Controller. Accordingly, the order of this Court dated 18.06.2010 passed in C.R.P. No. 1735 of 2010 is recalled. The CRP is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the appellate Rent Controller as well as the Rent Controller are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Rent Controller for fresh disposal. The learned Rent Controller is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file counter in the RC. However, the petitioner is directed to file his counter, if any, within eight days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Then the Rent Controller, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing both the parties, shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law, within three months from the date of filing of counter by the petitioner herein in the RC. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 31.08.2010 Nsr