MARRAPU VENKATASWAMY Vs. NADIPALLI RAMAMOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The problem which this Revision poses is whether the 'Government can constitute an appellate authority under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960), hereinafter called the Act, under section 35 which confers powers to remove difficulties. The facts leading to this question lie in a narrow compass and can quite briefly be stated. The respondent filed an application for eviction on the ground that he requires the premises for his personal occupation. That petition was resisted by the petitioner herein. The Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, dismissed the petition on 27th March, 1962. The respondent therefore went in appeal before the District Judge, East Godavary district at Rajahmundry. His appeal was allowed by the District Judge on 2och December, 1962. It is this judgment of the appellate authority that is assailed in this Revision Petition.

(2.) The principal contention of Mr. M. Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that, according to section 20 of the Act the appellate authority is the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, and that the appeal therefore ought to have been filed before the Subordinate Judge. The Government quite erroneously conferred the power to hear appeals under section 20 on the District Judge, Rajahmundry, through G.O. Ms. No. 575 dated nth October, 1961. His contention is that, the Government cannot amend section 20 of the Act and confer appellate powers on a distinctly separate authority than what is contemplated by section 20 of the Act. In order to appreciate the merits of this contention it is necessary to read sections 20 and 35 of the Act. Section 20 leads :

(3.) The other sub-sections are not material for our purpose. Section 35 is in the following terms:-