LAWS(APH)-2012-3-7

T M NAGARANI Vs. ANDHRA TILES

Decided On March 02, 2012
T.M. NAGARANI Appellant
V/S
ANDHRA TILES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 22.12.2011, in R.A. No. 116 of 2011, on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby he has reversed the order, dated 13.04.2011, in R.C. No. 26 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The petitioners filed R.C. No. 26 of 2010 seeking eviction of the respondent under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii)(a) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent raised an objection on the maintainability of eviction petition on the ground that even according to the petitioners, the rent of the building in question is Rs. 3,500/- per month and that as per the amended provisions of Section 32(c) of the Act, if the rent of the building exceeds Rs. 2,000/- in the areas other than the Municipal Corporation areas, the Rent Controller will cease to have jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction. The respondent further pleaded that the demised premises is admittedly situated in the Secunderabad Cantonment area and that therefore, it does not form part of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area and consequently it falls within the expression 'in other areas' under Section 32(c) of the Act. The petitioners contested the said plea of the respondent.

(2.) The learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad vide her order, dated 13.04.2011, rejected the preliminary objection of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed R.A. No. 116 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was allowed by the lower appellate Court by order, dated 22.12.2011.

(3.) Before dealing with the case on merits, it needs to be noted that the order passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller is hard to decipher. The effort made by this Court to understand the said order has not paid off. Therefore, this Court delved into the reasons contained in the order of the lower appellate Court.