MOHD. AHMED ALI Vs. NAGAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order passed by the Small Causes Court Judge as the appellate authority, under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Leases) Control Act, Act XX of 1954. The petitioner is the landlord who applied for ejectment of his tenant, the respondent, on three grounds viz: (1) that the tenant was a wilful defaulter in payment of rent, (2) that he misused the premises and (3) that the landlord personally required the premises for his use as he has no other house of his own to live in. The Rent Controller by his order dated the 15th of October, 1953 rejected all these pleas and dismissed the petition for ejectment. An appeal was preferred on 9th November, 1953, evidently after the lapse of 15 days fixed by the Rent Control Order of 1353 F. but within 30 days as provided by Act XX of 1954. This appeal was pending when Act XX of 1954 came into force. The appellate authority disagreed with the finding of the Rent Controller in so far as the third point was concerned and this was sufficient for an order in favour of the appellant but he disallowed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Sec. 31 of Act XX of 1954 argued that as by the time this Act came into force, the appeal was still pending, it was saved from the bar of limitation by the said provision. Learned counsel on behalf of the other side relying on Potti Sarvaiah v. Warvara Nirasinga Rao, I.L.R. 1954 Hyd. 766 contended that Sec. 31 did not protect the appeal from the bar of limitation as a definite right had already accrued to the respondent by that time. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel.

(3.) The provision of Sec. 31 (c) reads thus: