J KOTHANDA NAIDU Vs. KANYAKAPARAMESWARI TEMPLE CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing, Shri P.S. Narayana, thelearned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision. This is a revision under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). Section 22 (1) of the Act reads as follows : "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 appellate authority on appeal under Section 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the revision lies to the High Court against an order passed by the Rent Controller in execution or against an order passed by the appellate authority. The present order is passed by the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act and it does not fall under either of the category of orders mentioned above. The civil revision petition is, therefore, not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(2.) THE petitioner is granted two weeks' time for filing the appeal.