LATEEF AZAM Vs. N. NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition arising out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Building(lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960. The petitioner is the tenant respondent in R.C. 412/73 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. He was set ex parte on 22.1.1974 and an ex parte order for eviction was passed on 29.1.1974. The petitioner had filed an application to set aside the ex parte order by filing IA. 282/74. As in filing the said application there was delay of 22 days, I.A. 283/74, was filed along with it to condone the delay in filing I.A. 282/74. The Rent Controller had dismissed I.A. 283/74 and consequentially I.A. 282/74. The tenant had appealed against I.A. 282/74 under section 20 of the Act to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, who is the appellant authority. The office had raised an objection to the maintainability of the appeal. The appeal was, therefore, not registered. The appellate authority heard the petitioner with regard to the objection raised by the office on 23-4-1974. The learned Judge held that the order in I.A. 282/74 on the file of the Rent Controller to set aside the ex parte order is no an appeallable order on the ground that the order does not effect the rights and liabilities of the parties. In coming to that conclusion, the learned Judge relied upon the decisions in Chganala (Died) Sardarilal v. Narasing Pershad, (1972) (I) A.P.L.J. 343 and Amsingh v. Jethmal, A.I.R. (1957) Raj 173.

(2.) It is contended b the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Division Bench decision of this court in Changanlal Sardarilal v. Narsingh Pershad has not been correctly understood by the learned Chief Judge and that the said decision fully supports his contention that the appeal from I.A. No. 282/74 lies to the Chief Judge. He also submitted that the reliance placed by the lower court on the decision in Amsingh v. Jethmal is entirely wrong. I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Section 20(1) of the Act provides that nay person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days, from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad......