K SEETHARAMA RAO Vs. K HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. arises out of eviction proceedings taken under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is the tenant, The respondent filed the petition for eviction on the ground that there is wilful default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant. That eviction petition was dismissed for default. Thereafter, within 30 days time, as provided under rule 8 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act. the respondent filed a petition for restoration. That petition also was dismissed for default. To restore that restoration petition, the respondent filed another petition, I. A. No. 1133/1972. The Rent Controller allowed that petition and restored the restoration petition. I.A No. 605/72. Aggrieved by that order restoring I.A. 605/72, the tenant perferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority in R A.No. 376/1973, contending that the petition filed to restore I. A. 605/72 is not maintainable, The Appellate Authority having come to the conclusion that the petition is maintainable, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that, the tenant has come forward with this revision petition.

(2.) Sri T Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that under rule 8(3) of the rules, provision is made only for restoration of an eviction petition dismissed for default and that provision has no application for restoration of a restoration petition dismissed for default. Under 'Rule 8 (3) it Is provided that where an order is passed exparte against a tenant or a landlord, or an order of dismissal for default Is passed by the Controller, the party affected may. within 30 days from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open court, apply to the Controller by whom the exparte order or the order of dismissal was passed, for an order to set it aside The argument of Mr. Ramachandra Rao is that the provision relates only to an application filed under the Act, i.e.. it applies only for a restoration of the peti tion filed under the Act and not for restoration of petitions filed under the provisions of the rules. In other words, the restoration petition dismissed for default being one not filed under the provisions of the Act itself as it is filed under rule 8 (3) of the rules, that rule has no aoplication for the restoration of the petition filed under that rule I do not think that such a distinction is warranted from the language used in the rule. The rule says :

(3.) Here, the order on the restoration petition also was passed dismissing It for default. Therefore, it squarely comes under sub-rule (3) of rule 8, and I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that rule 8 (3) applies only to restoration petitions for restoring the petitions filed under the provisions of the Act, and not for restoration petitions filed for restoring the petitions filed under the rules.