SAMUDRALA NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. VENKANA RAGHAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for determination in this S.R. is, whether a revision petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is barred by limitation if not filed within 90 days from the date of the order as laid down by Role 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called the Rules). If that rule governs the case, the revision petition is barred by limitation and the petitioner should get the delay condoned on sufficient cause being shown. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the rule has no application to the case as it is governed by Section 22 of the Act, according to which the revision petition could be filed at any time.

(2.) Considering the importance of the question raised, one of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.) directed that the matter should be posted before a Bench. At our request, Sri G. Venkatarama Sastry has argued the question supporting the view taken by the office.

(3.) The revision petition is filed by the landlord under Section 22 of the Act to revise the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, by which he held, agreeing with the Rent Controller, that the landlord was not entitled to claim eviction of the tenant on the ground that his application for possession of the non-residential premises is not bona fide. That, order was passed on 3-7-1962, and the revision petition in this Court was filed on 19-4-1963, admittedly beyond 90 days. It is not disputed that if the period of limitation is 90 days, the revision is beyond time. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that this petition is filed under Section 22 of the Act, under which the revision could be preferred at any time, and Rule 41-A has no application .