M KUPPAIAH Vs. V KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Order of the Bench Made by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.) The petitioner seeks to file the appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent in relation to an order passed in CRP 997/70 by a single Judge of this Court. Clause 15 reads thus

(2.) IT is clear from the provisions of clause 15 that no appeal under that clause is open against an order made in exercise of revi. sional jurisdiction by a single judge. The learned Counsel argues that the matter has come before the High Court under a Special law known as A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, So the power exercised by a single Judge is not a revisional one within the meaning of the term used in clause 15 IT is difficult to accede to the contention inasmuch as revisionl was filed in this court as a matter of fact. Of course it was under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. That does not make any difference inasmuch as jurisdiction exercised was but revisional, both in substance and in effect. The words "in exercise of revisional jurisdiction" used in clause 15 have their wide amplitude and are not susceptible of narrow interpretation to be placed on them This jurisdiction is not confined to one contemplated under Section 115. Revisional jurisdiction mav be conferred by other Acts as well, Section 22 is one such provision. IT is impossible to hold that the order passed under Sec. 22 is not an order made in exercise of revisional jurisdictionl Clause 15 places an embargo on entertainment of appeal against such order. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Letters patent Appeal as sought to be preferred is wholly incompetent. The S. R. is therefore dismissed.