MARRAPU VENKATASWAMY Vs. NADIPALLI RAMAMOHAN RAO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NADIPALLI RAMAMOHAN RAO
Click here to view full judgement.
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. -
(1.) The problem which this Revision poses is whether the
'Government can constitute an appellate authority under section 20 of the Andhra
Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960), hereinafter
called the Act, under section 35 which confers powers to remove difficulties. The
facts leading to this question lie in a narrow compass and can quite briefly be stated.
The respondent filed an application for eviction on the ground that he requires
the premises for his personal occupation. That petition was resisted by the petitioner
herein. The Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, dismissed the petition on 27th
March, 1962. The respondent therefore went in appeal before the District Judge,
East Godavary district at Rajahmundry. His appeal was allowed by the District
Judge on 2och December, 1962. It is this judgment of the appellate authority that
is assailed in this Revision Petition.
(2.) The principal contention of Mr. M. Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, is that, according to section 20 of the Act the appellate authority is the
Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, and that the appeal therefore ought to have
been filed before the Subordinate Judge. The Government quite erroneously
conferred the power to hear appeals under section 20 on the District Judge,
Rajahmundry, through G.O. Ms. No. 575 dated nth October, 1961. His contention is that,
the Government cannot amend section 20 of the Act and confer appellate powers on a
distinctly separate authority than what is contemplated by section 20 of the Act.
In order to appreciate the merits of this contention it is necessary to read
sections 20 and 35 of the Act. Section 20 leads :
"(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller may, within 30 days from
the date of the order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, in the cities
of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and elsewhere to the Subordinate Judge, or if there are more than
one Subordinate Judge, to the Principal Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area
aforesaid. In computing the said period of 30 days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the
order appealed against shall be excluded. "
(3.) The other sub-sections are not material for our purpose. Section 35 is in the following terms:-
"(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, in consequence of the
transition to the said provisions from the corresponding provisions of the Act, which were in force
immediately before the commencement of this Act. the Government may, by order in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette, make such provisions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient for removing
(2) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act (otherwise than in relation to
the transition from the provisions of the corresponding Acts, which were in force before the
commencement of this Act), the Government may, by order in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette , make such
provisions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, as appear to them to be necessary or expedient
for removing the difficulty. ";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.