SAIBABA CLOTH EMPORIUM ADONI Vs. KOLLI SANJEEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary point that arises for decision in these matters is, whether cross-objections are maintainable in a revision filed under S. 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 petition filed by the 1st respondent herein was ordered by the Rent Controller 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). On appeal 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 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 revision filed by the subtenant 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 S. 22 of the Rent Control Act since there is no provision in the Act corresponding to 0.41, R. 22, C.P.C. Hence this preliminary issue.

(3.) Before deciding the question it is necessary to look into S. 22 of the Rent Control Act so as to find out its scope and ambit. It runs thus:-- "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 proceedings taken under this Act by the Controller in execution under S. 15 by the appellate authority on appeal under S. 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such reference thereto as it thinks fit." Considering S. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which is in pari materia with S. 22 of the A, P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, the Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan (AIR 1960 SC 655) held that the revisionary power conferred upon the High Court under S.15(5) is wider than that conferred by S.115 of Civil Procedure Code, and therefore the revisional Court can examine the lagality and propriety of the order of the authorities. Further, this Court in Mahaboob Bi v. Alvala Lachmiah (AIR 1964 AP 314) held that the words 'legality, regularity or propriety of the order' occurring in the section are wide enough to cover questions of both law and fact and that the High Court can interfere with the orders of the Courts below in a revision filed under S. 22 of the Rent Control Act. The only limitation on the powers as held by this Court is as regards making orders of remand.