VEERABAHUTLA ADINARAYANA Vs. BALUSU RAJARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 105 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil judge, Tadepalligudem. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale and the same is pending. The respondent/ defendant filed R. C. C. No. 4 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, tadepalligudem. As the property involved is the same, the petitioner moved an application, being transfer O. P. (SR) No. 7168 of 2007, purportedly under Rule 9 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)Control Rules, 1961 ("the Rules", for brevity)before the Senior Civil Judge, who is also appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 ("the Act", for brevity) to transfer r. C. C. No. 4 of 2005 from the file of the Rent controller to itself for being tried along with the specific performance suit. By the impugned order, the application was rejected, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

(2.) STRONG reliance is placed on Rule 9 of the Rules, which reads as below. An appellate authority may transfer a case from the file of one Controller to that of another Controller within his jurisdiction,-

(3.) AFTER perusing the Rule, this Court is not able to countenance the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case pending before the Rent Controller can be transferred to an appellate authority constituted for the purpose of Section 20 of the Act. A plain reading of it would show that an appellate authority constituted under the act can transfer a case from the file of one controller to that of another Controller within his jurisdiction, if such Controller is interested in the Rent Control Case, or if such transfer is necessary or for administrative grounds. Section 2 (iv) of the Act defines 'controller' as any person not below the rank of a tahsildar appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Controller under this Act. Section 20 of the Act lays down that the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and the Subordinate Judge or the Principal subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area shall be appellate authorities. An appeal would lie to the appellate authority against an order passed by the Controller. If the appellate authority has conceded, the power as submitted by the learned counsel to transfer a case pending before the Controller to an appellate authority, the same would render the remedy of appeal provided for under Section 20 of the Act, ineffective. Such an interpretation cannot be adopted, when rule 9 of the Act employs plain language expressing the contour power of the appellate authority to transfer cases.