MILAP CHAND JAIN Vs. MATURI DAMAYANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the appellants in R.C.A.No. 15/99 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vizianagaram. The appeal was filed under Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against an order of the learned Rent Controller, Vizianagaram, dated 16-12-1999, holding that Ex. A-8, dated 15-3-1989, is not a lease deed in R.C.C.No. 24/97 on the file of the learned Rent Controller while examining P.W. 1, the petitioner in the R.C.C. - respondent in the appeal and also in the present revision.

(2.) Mrs. Rajeshwari representing Sri Venugopal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the C.R.P. had raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the C.R.P. under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The learned Counsel had contended that an order admitting a document is only an interlocutory order more concerned to the procedural aspect, not affecting the rights and liabilities of the parties and as against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Rent Controller, appeal under Section 20 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act", is not maintainable. The learned Counsel also had contended that when the appeal itself is not maintainable as against such an interlocutory order, there is no question of maintaining a further revision under Sec. 22 of the Act. The learned Counsel places strong reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Jaleel Khan v. M. Kamalamma and also M. Nagendra Rao v. B.K. Lakshmaiah.

(3.) Sri Vijay representing Sri M. Jagannadha Sarma, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners had contended that the document in question is a very crucial document and several important aspects involved in the dispute may have to be decided in view of the contents of the said document and hence, it cannot be said that this is only a procedural matter, inasmuch as, the rights and liabilities of the parties, in fact, are affected and hence, the appeal is maintainable and consequently, this revision also is maintainable as against the order made by the appellate authority. The learned Counsel also had brought to my notice that the impugned order was made by the learned Rent Controller on 16-12-1999 and since it is a crucial aspect, leaving this question also to be decided while deciding the main Rent Control proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. The learned Counsel also had submitted that in matters of this nature, the parties must have a remedy since their legal rights are affected. The leaerned Counsel had stressed on the proposition that wherever there is a right or infringement of right, there must be a remedy available to such a party.