NOONA VENKATA NARAYANA Vs. KUNCHAPARTI RANGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the landlord, and feels aggrieved against the order of the lower appellate authority, dated November 24, 1955, whereby his appeal has been dismissed and judgment of the Rent Controller sustained. A preliminary objection has been taken in this revision petition that as the property from which the revision petitioner seeks to evict the respondent is not a house as defined in the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, the proceedings asked to be revised are without jurisdiction. Section 2 (b) defines' house' as follows :

(2.) A tenant has been defined by section 2 (/) as follows :

(3.) The result is that the proceedings before the Rent Controller by the revision petitioner has been misconceived, and cannot give the petitioner the relief he has claimed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed ; but having regard to the fact that the tenant has not paid rent for the last six years, I make no order as to the costs of this revision petition dismissed.