D ANIL KUNAR Vs. SHIVA BALAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ugranarsimha, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri S. Balchand, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) THE revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act No. 15 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as against an order made in i. A. No. 640 of 2004 in R. A. No. 87 of 2003 on the file of the learned additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 312-2004. the said application was moved by the revision petitioner herein, the respondent in R. A. No. 87 of 2003 - Land-lord - under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act, LA. No. 640 of 2004 requesting the Court to direct the appellant in R. A. No. 87 of 2003 - tenant - to deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises bearing No. 21-5-13/1, charmahal, Opposite: City College, Hyderabad to the landlord for construction of a new building demolishing the old structures. Several factual details had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The tenant filed a counter in elaboration opposing the same. Learned Judge having observed that the relief sought for may be granted in the main appeal and definitely not in an interlocutory application and having observed so, further proceed to discuss certain decisions and recorded certain reasons at Paragraph Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order and ultimately dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

(3.) SRI Ugranarsimha, learned Counsel representing the petitioner would contend that under Section 12 of the Act, an application before the learned Rent Controller had been preferred to and on the interpretation of the language, it cannot be said that an interlocutory application claiming the relief in a pending appeal cannot be maintained. Learned Counsel had also drawn the attention of this court to the language employed in Sections 12, 10, 11 and 20 of the act and would maintain that the view expressed by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel would also submit that the landlord, in fact, had been successful before the learned Rent controller, though one of the grounds had gone against him, which also had been challenged. Learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to Point No. 4 before the learned Rent Controller and also had drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 43 of the said order, as against which the appeal had been preferred wherein positive findings have been recorded relating to the relief under Section 12 of the Act.