SHAIK BANDAGI SAHEB Vs. SHAIK NURULLA SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question of law of general importance whether the appellate Court acting under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for short 'the Act', has the power to remand the proceedings to the Rent Controller for fresh trial and disposal, arises for consideration and decision in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition be stated briefly as under: The respondent herein filed R.C.C. No. 23 of 1993 against the petitioner herein for his eviction from the petition schedule premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent in the Court of the Rent Controller, Ongole. The petitioner filed his counter inter alia contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between him and the respondent. In the said R.C.C. the respondent herein filed I.A.No. 183/94 under Section 11(4) of the Act with a prayer for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises. The learned Rent Controller by his order dt. 8-7-1994 dismissed LA. No. 183/94. The respondent herein preferred an appeal R.C.A.No. 5/95 to the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Ongole under Sec. 20 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties was of the opinion that it was not possible to give any finding on the question whether there is landlord and tenant relationship between the parties without conducting a regular enquiry and without recording evidence and the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application without giving any finding on that question. In that view of the matter, the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dt. 26-2-1996 set aside the order made by the learned Rent Controller and remanded the proceedings to the learned Rent Controller with a direction to conduct a regular enquiry and dispose of the application afresh as per law. Hence this Civil Revision Petition by the tenant-petitioner.

(3.) Heard Sri P. Sree Rama Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Singam Venkata Subba Rao learned counsel for the respondent. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Subordinate Judge, Ongole has no jurisdiction under Sec. 20 of the Act to remand the proceedings to the Rent Controller, and, therefore the order impugned in the revision should be held to be one without jurisdiction. No other point is urged. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the learned single Judges of this Court in Mahboob Bi vs. Alvala Lachmaiah, Ekrramuddin vs. Smt Sheela Bai Ekbote, Konduru Ammannachary vs. Rahinm Khatoon. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed relicence on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gian Chand vs. Ram Rakha Mul and others, and the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in M/s. Moti Ram Banarasi Dass vs. Shri Shiv Dayal Trust in support of his submission. On the other hand, Sri Singam Venkata Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ongole.