HAIHAM ALI Vs. BASHEERUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision-petition filed by the tenant under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction), Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It appears the land-lord had filed a petition for the eviction of his tenant, the present petitioner, under S. 10 of the Act. Pending that order, the landlord filed I. A. 1081/78 under Section 11 of the Act for directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Controller all the arrears of rent due in respect of the suit premises. By an order dt. 17-11 78 the Rent Controller had directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month for the relevant period. The tenant did not pay this amount within the stipulated period nor did he prefer any appeal against that order of the Rent Controller. Accordingly, the Rent Controller passed an order dt. 4-12-78 staying all further proceedings before the Rent Controller and also directing the eviction of the tenant on the ground of his non-compliance with the order of the Rent Controller dt. 17-11-78. Against this order of the Rent Controller dt. 4-12-78 the tenant had preferred an appeal under section 20 of the Act to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, Hyderabad, by his order dt. 6-8-79 held that the appeal was incompetent on the ground that the earlier order passed by the Rent Controller on 17-11-78 directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- on or before 4-12-78 was neither complied with nor appealed against and the present order dt. 4-12-78 being merely a consequential order, could not be appealed against. It is against this order, the present C.R.P. has been filed.

(2.) The question that arises for consideration is whether the tenant in this case can avail himself of a statutory right of appeal given to him under section 20 of the Act. Section 20 Cl (l)of the Act says that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in the cities of Hyderabad and Secundcrabad. The language of this Section is so wide that prima facie it appears to take in every sort of an order passed by the Rent Controller without any qualification. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the tenant clearly falls under Section 20 Cl. (1) of the Act. But Mr. Ugle says that this appeal is incompetent on the ground that the earlier order made by the Rent Controller under Section 11 (3) of the Act is the main order and the subsequent order made by the Rent Controller under S. 11 (4) of the Act directing the eviction of the tenant is merely a consequential order and that therefore unless the main order is appealed against and got rid of, the consequential order cannot be complained against. In other words, what Mr. Ugle says is that if the tenant wanta to arrest the consequences that flow from an order made by the Rent Controller under S.l1(3) of the Act directing certain amount of rent to be paid or deposited the tenant cannot complain against an order passed under S. 11(4) of the Act which is merely of a consequential nature. This argument presupposes that there are varieties of orders of differing hierarchical values the Rent Controller might past cinder Sec 11 of the Act The language of Section 20 of the Act clearly does not recognize any such hierarchy in the orders passed by the Rent Controller some being liable to appellate jurisdictions and others being immune from it. All orders passed by the Rent Controller are made appeaiable. The question whether a particular order is appealable or not can only be decided not by asking the question whether it is a consequential order or a final order but by asking the question whether it is an order passed by the Rent Controller and whether the person preferring the appeal is aggrieved by such an order. The language "aggrieved by such an order" is the only limiting clause in Sec. 20. It is significant in the sense that it excludes appeals from some of the interlocutory orders which has not affected the rights of the parties. Otherwise, I do not find any limitation on the appealability of Sec. 20 to any order made by the Rent Controller. In other words, every order made by the Rent Controller affecting the rights of the parties is appealable under Section 20. In this view of the matter, I am of the clear opinion that the present order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, holding that the tenants appeal preferred against an order of the Rent Controller made under S 11(4) on 4-12-78 is not maintainable is clearly not sustainable.

(3.) In fact Section 11 (1) of the Act shows that the failure to pay arrears of rent or current rent would operate to prevent a tenant from filing an appeal only in a case where the appeal is filed by the tenant against an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Section 10. In all other cases this pre-condition of payment of arrears of rent and payment of current rent would not operate to limit the tenant's right of appeal Section 11 (3)refers to S.11 Clause (1) and therefore takes in the limitations contained in Sec. 11 of the Act. Any order made under sub-clause (3) of section 11 if tread along with Section 11 Cl. (1) must therefore share in the same interpretation and must he limited only to the orderS made under section 10 of the Act by the Rean Controller, But that way the Section 11 (3) becomes less manoeuverable and workable. It is more reasonable to hold that section 11 Cl. (3) is an independent section and to confine it to situations where appeals are filed by a tenant against orders other than those orders of eviction passed bv the Rent Controller under Section 10 of the Act. In that view the limitation under sec 11(l) would not apply to the tenant's appeal filed against the orders of Rent Controller passed under Section 11 (3) of he Act. Mohd. Khaja vs. Bismillah Begum does not directly bear on this question