SAIBARA CLOTH EMPORIUM Vs. K SANJEEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary point that arises for decision in these matters is,whether cross-objections are maintainable in a revision filed under Sec. 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

(2.) The brief facts that led to this issue are that the eviction petitionfiled by the 1st respondent herein was ordered by the Rent Controlfer holding that the requirement of the premises by the 1st respondent was bona fide and that the sub-letting of the premises by the 2nd respondent tenant to the petitioner (sub-tenant) herein was without consent of the land-lady (R. 1). Oh appear by the present petitioner, the lower appellate Court though found the two grounds, viz., bona fide requirement of the premises and sub-letting, against the land-lady (R. 1) ordered eviction on the ground that the tenant (R. 2) in his reply notice promised to vacate the premises. Challenging this order of eviction the petitioner-Sub-tenant came forward with this revision. May be, in view of the fact that there is an order of eviction in favour of the land-lady (R. 1), no revision challenging the findings as regards bona fide requirement and sub-letting was filed by the land-lady. However in view of the revision filed by the sub-tenant the land-lady filed cross-objections in the revision so as to challenge the two findings of the lower appellate Court which are against her. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cross-objections are not maintainable in a revision filed under Section 2 of the Rent Control Act since there is no provision in the Act corresponding to Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. Hence this preliminary issue.

(3.) Before deciding the question it is necessary to look into Sec. 22 ofthe Rent Control Act so as to find out its scope and ambit. It runs thus :--