A K BABU Vs. RAGHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision two legal questions have been raised by Shri S.R. Ashok, learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly he contended that the ex-parte order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 10 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is an illegal order in asmuch as it does not satisfy the requirement of the law under Sec. 10 of the Act. This contention was not accepted by the lower appellate Court. Secondly it was contended that the learned Subordinate Judge acting as Appellate Authority under the Act has mis-construed and misinterpreted the scope and language of Sec. 20 of the Act in having held that the revision petitioner herein was not entitled to prefer an appeal under Sec. 20 of the Act and the remedy was available to him to file a petition before the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex-parte order under Rule-8 (3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961.

(2.) As regards the first contention, I find that the ex-parte order passed by the learned Rent Controller violates the principles of natural justice, in as much as it is not a speaking order and it also does not give out reasons for its conclusion. Further it does not satisfy the requirement of provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the eviction petition filed by the land-lord was based on twin grounds of wilful default and personal requirement of the suit premises by the land-lord. Before I consider the legal upon by the landlord. The order to be passed on such grounds must give reasons for his conclusions and also record his findings as to the requirement of the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act, in view of the conditions imposed by the statute under Sec. 10 of the Act as a pre-requisite for the purpose of providing relief to the landlord on the grounds of wilful default and bonafide requirement of the premises for personal occupation. The Rent Controller cannot afford to have a short-cut to the requirements of law by passing a bald order as was done in the present case by use of the expression "Petition allowed". In my view the order passed by the Rent Controller is an illegal order and it is vitiated for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act.

(3.) Against such an order, which could not have been sustained in law, the tenant had two alternative remedies, (1) firstly by way of filing a petition for setting aside the exparte order of eviction under Rule 8 (3) of the Rules ; and (2) Secondly by preferring an appeal under Sec. 20, of the Act. Under Sec. 20 of the Act any person aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller is entitled to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of the order.