T PULLANNA Vs. KHADERVULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the Rent Controller, is a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the Civil Revision Petition may briefly be stated thus: Respondents 1 and 2, landlords filed R.C.C. No. 31/85 under Sec. 10 (2) (i) (ii) of the Act for eviction of one K.N. Sastry (alleged tenant) from the premises in question before the Rent Controller-cum- Principal District Munsif, Kurnool. He remained ex parte and the learned Rent Controller passed as ex parte order of eviction on August 21, 1986. Aggrieved by this exparte order of eviction the petitioner filed appeal in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, under Section 20 of the Act with an application for permission to permit him to file the appeal. He alleges that he is tenant of t he premises in question and if the exparte order of eviction is executed, he would be adversely affected as such he is an aggrieved party and is entitled to prefer an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 20 of the Act, rejected the application for leave to appeal and directed the office to return the memorandum of appeal to him. The petitioner challenges the validity and the propriety of this order of the Appellate Authority in this revision petition.

(3.) As the respondents remained absent, Sri Vinaya Kumar, advocate, was requested to act as amicus curiae.