ABDUL WAHAB Vs. WAZIRUNNISSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant of a non-residential building in Hyderabad and the respondent is the owner of the same. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on one ground viz., that the tenant committed default in payment of agreed rent. The petition was resisted by the tenant on various grounds. Clause (1) of section 11 prescribes that no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under section 10, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section., or to prefer any appeal under section 20 against any order made by Controller on the application, unless he had paid to the landlord, or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due. The parties were not agreed as to the rate of the agreed rent or on the question as to the rent due as an arrear. Therefore an application was made before the Rent Controller under clause (3) of sectioc 11 for determination of the question. The said clause provides that where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid to deposited under sub-section (1), the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, on application made to him cither by the tenant or by the landlord, and after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. In the present case, an application was made to the Rent Controller to determine what was the agreed rent and what was the arrear due, if any. By his order dated the 4th January, 1963, the Rent Controller determined that an amount of Rs.7,110-82 nP. was due towards the arrear upto that date. This determination is followed by the following order :

(3.) The tenant filed an appeal before the City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad under section 20 of the Act. The learned Judge of the City Small Causes Court pointed out that the main petition for eviction is still pending enquiry and decision and that it cannot be rightly urged that the order sought to be appealed against is in the nature of a final order and as such appealable under section 20 of the Act and that it is in the nature of an interim order and therefore not appealable. For this view, the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, relied upon the two decisions in Kanaya Pershad v. Gajapati Nadiu, I.L.R. 1956 Hyd. 137, and an unreported judgment of this High Court in Hiralal v. Lachmi Bai, C.R.P. No. 619 of 1958. In that view, the appeal was dismissed. Hence the tenant filed this Civil Revision Petition.