MOHD KHAJA Vs. BISMILLAH BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court as an appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1960 given on 23rd February, 1968. It arises in the following circumstances. The respondent-landlady fi'ed an application under section 10 of the Act for eviction on the ground of tenant's wilful default. During the pendency of that petition, the landlady filed an application under section 11 seeking direction from the Rent Controller, that the respondent who had fallen in to arrears of rent should be directed to deposit the same, failing which his summary eviction should be ordered. The petition was resisted by the tenant mainly on the ground that he had made certain payments. After a summary enquiry, the Rent Controller disbelieved the defence set up by the tenant and directed the tenant by his order dated and September, 1967 to pay an amount of Rs. 452 being the arrears of rent within 15 days from that date, failing which an order under section 11 (4) of the Act would follow. Dissatisfied with that order, the tenant preferred an appeal under section 20 of the Act, to the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal an application under section 11 was again filed by the land lady. That petition was resisted on the ground that such a petition was not maintainable as the appeal was not preferred against an order passed on a petition filed under section 10 of the Act, but was preferred against an order passed under section 11(1) of the Act. The Appellate authority rejected the contention holding that the word " application " referred to in sub-section (1) of section 11 does not necessarily refer to a petition under section 10. It also held that the word " appeal " refers to any appeal filed under section 20 of the Act. The appellate authority therefore directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days from the date of the order. It is this view that is now assailed in this revision petition.

(2.) At the first instance the revision petition came up before one of us (Ramachandra Rao, J.), The same contention was urged before him. In view of the importance of the question involved the revision petition was referred to a Bench and that is how the matter has come before us.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned Advocate fur the petitioner, it is necessary to read section 11 (1) of the Act which runs as follows:-