N NARAYANAMMA Vs. P BHASKER REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This Civil Revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur. acting as an Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act.

(2.) The relevant facts are : There were certain proceedings for eviction before the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Anantapur, numbered as H. R. C. No. 14 of 1967. The then Rent Controller cum-Munsif, Anantapur, Sri J Rajasekhara Reddy, addressed a letter dt. 7-12-1967 to the District Judge Anantapur, stating that the landlord was a friend of his, that the respondent-tenant's husband was also known to him and that he was feeling embarassed to enquire into the petition before him. He made a request that the case might be transferred to the file of any other Rent Controller. The learned District Judge, Anantapur, thereupon passed an order on 13-12-1967 transferring H. R. C. No. 14 of 1967 from the file of the Munisf-Rent Controller, Anantapur to the file of the Munsif-Rent Controller, Dharmavaram acting under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the aforesaid transfer the Rent Contoller-Munsif at Dharmavaram passtd the order, which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, who is the Subordinate Judge. A preliminary question was raised before the Subordinate Judge that the District Judge, Anantapur, purporting to act under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure had no jurisdiction to transfer H. R. C. No. 14 of 1967 pending on the file of the Munsif-Rent Controller at Anantapur, to the file of the Munsif-Rent Controller at Dharmavaram That argument found favour with the learned appellate Judge. By the Judgment under revision, he allowed the appeal before him and set aside the order of the Rent Controller-Munsif, Dharmavaram and transmitted the case to the Rent Controller-Munsif at Anantapur, directing that he should dispose of the case in accordance with law. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged before me by the petitioner.

(3.) It is urged by Sri Ayyapu Reddy for the petitioner that there was no lack of jurisdiction in the District Judge to make an order of transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even otherwise it is a mere lack of jurisdiction and not an inherent lack of jurisdiction; the defect of jurisdiction in the order of transfer is cured by reason of the consent of the parties. It was urged by him that neither party had questioned the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller-Munsif, Dharmavaram to try the matter and even in the appeal preferred, no ground as such was raised, It must also be deemed that there was a waiver on the part of the respondent and it would not be open to him to dispute the correctness of the order of the Munsif-Rent Controller, Dharrnavaram, on the ground of absence of jurisdiction in him by reason of the illegal order of transfer made by the District Judge.