RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Vs. N VENOKOBA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order allowing the amendmentunder Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. The landlord filed a petition for amendment of the petition. THIS application is allowed. As against this order the tenant filed a revision under section 115 C. P. C. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition is not maintainable as Section 115 C. P. C. is not applicable to revision under Rent Control Act and the only remedy if at all is revision under the Rent Control Act. The initial investigation is whether a revision lies under Rent Control Act. Section 22 of the Rent Control Act is as follows : "Revision :(1) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the Controller in execution under section 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under section 20 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety or such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit". The revision under the Rent Control Act is specifically confined to the orders passed in execution under Section 15 or by the appellate authoriity on appeal under Section 20 of the Act. The order passed under ordei 6 Rule 15 C. P. C. does not come within the purview of either section 15 of the Act or under section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the applicability of Section 22 of the Rent Control Act is completely ruled out. The only aspect that has to be considered is whether Section 115 C. P. C. can be invoked. The Rent Control Act is a self-contained enactment providing for remedies under the Act and the applicability of the provisions of any other Act including C.P.C. ate excluded. The heirarchy of the authorities are constituted under the Act and diverse1 remedies are provided under the Act and therefore the reliefs or remedies are regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Act. In this view it cannot be said that Section 115 C. P. C. is applicable. Even otherwise Section 115 C. P. C. can be invoked in respect of an order passed by any subordinate court. The Rent Controller cannot be considered as a civil court under the Civil Courts Act or a subordinate court as contemplated under Section 115 C. P. C. Considered from this perspective also section 115 C. P. C. cannot b'e invoked. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Hakeem Laxmaiah vs. Smt. Kantha Devi #1 where in the question that has come up for consideration is whether the appeal is maintainable as against interlocutory application. In that case also an amendment is sought for and that has been rejected and against the order rejecting the application for amendment an appeal is filed before the appellate authority. On a revision filed at the instance of one of the parties the questipa considered is whether the appeal is maintainable as against the interlocutory order. In the context of considering this situation Seetaram Reddy, J held that the appeal under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act is maintainable as against substative order but not interlocutory order. I am unable to apprecite how this decision can be pressed into service in the particular circumstances of the case. THIS decision is concerned with the maintainability of the appeal as against interlocutory order and does not relate to maintainability of the revision either under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act or under Sec. 115 C.P.C. It cannot be said that the petitioner is totally wihout remedy. In an appeal as against substantive order that may be passed by the Rent Controller the petitioner can as well agitate this matter. But however at this stage it cannot be said that revision is maintainable either under Section 22 of the Rent Control Actor under Section 115 C. P. C. Therefore, the revision petition dismissed. No costs.