P I KRISHNA IYER Vs. MOTAMARRI MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of a case filed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) It is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Visakbapatnam, dismissing the appeal, C. M. A. No. 14 of 1967 and confirming the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Anakapalli, dismissing the petition filed under rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Rules) for the purpose of passing an order holding that the order of transfer made by the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, transferring the case, H. R. C. No. 17 of 1966 on the file of the Kent Controller (District Munsif) Visakhapatnam, to the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Anakapalli is contrary to rale 9 of the Rules mentioned above

(2.) The necessary facts may be stated thus : The case in question was originally filed in the Rent Controller's Court, Visakha patnam, (Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam) as H. R. C. No. 34 of 1963. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by passing G. O. Ms. No. 4. dt. 3-1-1966 published tn Gazette Extrordinary dated 5-1-1966 appointed District Munsifs to perform the functions of a Controller (Rent Controller) in their respective jurisdiction (Territorial), The Notification came into force on 25th January 1966. Thereafter the Dis'rict Munsiffs became the Rent Controllers under the Kent Control Act After this G.O. came into force the case from the file of the Revenue Divisioaal Officer, Visakhapatnam came to be transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court, Visakha patnam. Subsequently by G O. Ms. No. 2261 dt. 17th October, 1966 the Government after abolishing Judicial Second Class Magistrates Courts and conferring their jurisdiction in Munsif Courts re-fixed the strength of District Munsif Courts in some districts including Visakhapatnam District. As a result of it some new District Munsif Courts came to be created in the District of Visakhapatnam including one at Anakapalli. Thereafter by reason of the G. O. Ms. No. 4. dated 3-1-1966 referred to above the District Munsif there became the Rent Controller with regard to the matters coming within his territorial jurisdiction, After the District Munsif Court at Anp.kapalli was constituted the subject matter of the case in question came into the territorial jurisdiction of that Court from the territorial jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Visakhapatnam and therefore the District Munsif there became the Rent Controller having jurisdiction over the case. It is under these circumstances after the constitution of the District Munsif Court at Anakapalli, the District Judge, Visakhapatnarn under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed orders dated 29-10-1955 transferring all the civil cases and also the H. R. C., cases including the case under consideration relating to the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Anakapalli, to the file of that Court from the file of the District Munsif Court, Visakhapatnam. Under the Rent control Rules provision was made for transfer of cases and appeals. Under Rale 9 of the Rent Control rules the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge) was authorised to transfer a case from the file of one Controller to that of another Controller within his jurisdiction on any of the grounds mentioned therein Similarly under rule 12 provision was made empowering the Government to transfer an appeal from the file of one appellate authority to the file of another Appellate authority on the grounds mentioned therein. The petition in question was filed contending that except as provided under rule 9 of the Rent Control Rules there cannot be any transfer of cases from one Rent Controller to another Rent Controller and the District Judge has no power in the scheme of the Act to effect such a transfer from the file of one Controller to that of another controller and therefore the order passed by the District Judge is invalid.

(3.) It is true that in the scheme of the Act as provided in the rules only power was given to the appellate authority, namely, the Subordinate Judge to transfer a cass from the file of one Controller to that of another Controller within his jurisdiction. But that rule comes into play only when a case is properly pending before a Rent Controller having territorial jurisdiction to deal with that case and for reasons mentioned in that rule, it becomes necessary for its disposal to be transferred to another Controller having no territorfal jurisdiction over the case and therefore not competent to deal with the case without transfer being affected under prooer provision of law and by proper authority. The grounds mentioned in that rule are (1) If the Controller on whose file the case is pending is personally interested in it and reports the matter to the appellate authority ; or (2) if, on an application for transfer by any party in that case, the appellate authority is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for the transfer. Bat in (he present case, the case in question along with the other rent control cases had to be transferred from the file of the District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, to the file of the District Munsif, Anakapalli consequent on the District Munstf at Visakhapatnam losing bis territorial jurisdiction over those cases and the District Munsif at Anakapalli getting the jurisdiction over the same. It is not a case where the Anakapalli District Munsif having no territorial jurisdiction over the case it was transferred from the District Munsif, Visakhapatnam.