P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Judicial Member.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 44 (2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for brevity 'the Act, 2016) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on 10.4.2025, seeking to condone the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal.

2. On 09.06.2025, this Tribunal ordered notice to the respondents and directed to list the matter on 09.07.2025. On that day, respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 present and notice sent to respondent No.3 returned with an endorsement 'absent' and that the matter was directed to be listed on 28.7.2025 and thereafter the matter was listed on 19.08.2025 for filing counter and from there to 09.09.2025. On 09.09.2025, the case was posted for hearing on 16.09.2025, on which date Sri Syed Adil Ahmed Quadri, advocate filed Vakalath on behalf of petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 24.11.2025 and 03.12.2025.

3. After appearance of the learned counsel, he filed better affidavit of the petitioner explaining the reasons for the delay and he has stated that the actual number of days of delay is only 139 days, but not 200 days. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 15.9.2025 through counsel stating that he received the order copy on 22.9.2024 and the delay in filing the appeal comes only to 139 days after deducting 60 days time. The petitioner further stated that he is a senior citizen and suffering from various health issues since August 2024 and is still under medical treatment and as such he was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time and prayed to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner has also filed copies of medical reports to show his illness.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant, during his arguments, submitted that the sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 139 days is genuine, as the petitioner is a senior citizen and the delay is neither willful nor deliberate and prayed to condone the delay. He relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Mool Chandra vs. Union of India and another((2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625) wherein it is stated as follows:

                   20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another OA No.2066 of 2020 along with an application or condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant also relied on the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida and others((2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 127); The Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others((1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107). and Surendra G. Shanker vs. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.928 of 2025 out of SLP (Civil) No.25540 of 2023).

6. Respondent No.5, the Managing Director of Respondent No.1, has filed a counter opposing the petition, inter alia, contending that the inordinate delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course. He further maintained that the medical reports relied upon by the petitioner does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. By so saying, he prayed to dismiss the Petition.

7. Heard both the sides. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is as under:

                   "Whether the delay of 139 days in filing the appeal can be condoned by the Tribunal u/s.44(2) of the Act, 2016 r/w Sec. 5 of Limitation Act?"

8. POINT:

As can be seen from the above referred citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the day-to-day delay or hour-to-hour delay need not be explained by the petitioner. Further the learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Tribunal to the medical bills which he filed in support of his contention. This Tribunal has perused the medical bills issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. The medical record discloses that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and he has been suffering from aged ailments like vertigo, hearing loss, urinary gladder problem and kidney problem. The petitioner's contention that he has undergone continuous medical treatment for his continuous ailments is probably correct. A senior citizen of 70 years old with ill health is justified in saying that he was prevented by ill health to file the appeal within the limitation period. III-health is a sufficient cause to condone the delay since things are beyond his control. Under these circumstances, if delay is not condoned the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. The delay in the case on hand is not wilful and it was beyond his control.

9. Section 44 (2) Proviso is extracted below for better understanding of the matter as under:

                   44. Application for settlement of disputes and appeals to Appellate Tribunal:

                   (1)...

                   (2) ....

                   Provided the Appellate Tribunal may that entertain any appeal after expiry of sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period"

10. We rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surendra G. Shanker vs. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.928 of 2025 out of SLP (Civil) No.25540 of 2023), in which the Appellate Tribunal and High Court refused to condone the delay and on appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and High Court and condoned the delay referring to the proviso of Section 44 (2) of the Act, 2016.

11. It is settled law that the technical considerations and substantial justice are fitted against each other. When the situation demands justice, the technical considerations are to be kept aside when the opposite party does not suffer from any substantial loss or inconvenience. In the case on hand the respondents will not suffer any prejudice if the delay is condoned and the matter is disposed of on merits after hearing both the sides. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner will suffer injustice, if opportunity to appeal is denied.

12. For the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the petition is allowed and the delay of 139 days is hereby condoned.

The Registry is directed to register the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. List the matter indue course for further hearing.