CHEKOTI LINGAYYA Vs. RAVIPATI LAKSHMINARASAMMA ALIAS LALITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein applied to be impleaded in a proceeding before the Rent Controller, Secunderabad, in Rent Control Case No. 471 of 1960. Their application was rejected by the Rent Controller. They filed an appeal to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said Appellate Authority rejected the appeal in limine on the ground that the order appealed against was not a final order for the purposes of an enquiry before the Rent Controller. Against the 01 der of rejection of the appeal presented by the said third parties, this present petition is preferred.

(2.) The following relevant facts may be noticed. The proceeding before the Rent Controller was instituted by Srimathi Ravipati Lakshminarasamma alias Lalita Devi for eviction of the respondent, one M. K. Venkata Reddy, on the ground that the said respondent was a tenant of premises bearing No. 1-10-63, Begumpet, and that he had defaulted to pay rent. The respondent would appear to have denied that he was the tenant of the petitioner and that the arrears alleged were due. The matter was pending enquiry. It was at that stage that these petitioners applied to the Rent Controller to be impleaded as the owners of the premises in question, seeking to propound a case supporting the respondent. It has already been noticed that the Rent Controller rejected their application.

(3.) Sri Narasinga Rao argues in support of this petition that section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960) properly construed, would entitle even a third party to file an appeal and have it disposed of on the merits. We may lead the relevant section here. Section 20. in so far as it is re levant is in these terms :