MOHAMMAD SABER ALI Vs. MUBARAK BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner in both these revision petitions,

(2.) Mr. P. Kodandaramaiab, learned counsel for the petitiones raised the following points for consideration.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sec. 11 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 (hereinafter called the'Act') contemplates an enquiry before passing an order directing payment of arrears of rent, but no enquiry was made in the present case. Next, it was contended that even if the tenant commits default in complying with the order passed under Sec. 11 (3) of the Act, the Rent Controller is bound to make a further enquiry after issuing notice to the tenant to find out whether there was sufficient cause for committing default. Admittedly such a notice was not issued in the present proceedings'. Therefore, the order impugned is invalfd. The Third contention urged by him is that the petition filed for extension of time to deposit the amount directed by the Rent Controller was dismissed without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the proceedings sre vitiated. It was further urged that the appellate Court under the Act has all the powers of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the appellate Court should pass appropriate orders.