SALAH BEGUM ALIAS SHAHENSHA BEGUM Vs. R V BHUPAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the memorandum of crose-objections filed by the petitioner herein in RCA. No 95 of 1980, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, is maintainable under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1980 (herein after referred to as the Rent Control Act). Though it is not necessary to refer to the facts, for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition, they are mentioned to understand the background of the case. The petioner here- in is the landlady. She filed RCC. No. 120 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, under section 10 (2) (i) and 10(2)(ii) (a) of the Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents therein on the grounds of (1) wilful default in payment of rent and (2) subletting without authorisation of the landlady. The learned Rent Controller, allowed the petition "directing the respondents therein to vacate and deliver possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner." The respondents were granted two months time for vacating and delivering the vacant possesiion. The landlady was directed to depo it a sum of Rs. 35,000 into Court before she got possession of the property. The petition schedule property consists of a theatre.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller dated 30th September, 1980 in R. C. C No. 120 of 1977, Sri R. V. Bhupal Prasad, the respondent here in preferred RCA. No. 95 of 1980, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada, under section 20 of the Rent Control Act. After service of notice in the appeal on the landlady, she filed Memorandum of Cross- objections under Order 31, rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, in so far as the order passed by the Rent Controller was against her. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Memorandum of Cross-objections presented by the petitioner herein was not maintainable under the provisions of the Kent Control Act and that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, under which the cross-objection was taken by the landlady, were not applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act; Questioning the validity of the order of the learned subordinate Judge dated 28th January, 1981 in Cross-objections in R.C A. No. 95 of 1980, the present revision petition is filed,

(3.) it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act and in particular the provisions of Order 41, rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, under which the memorandum of Cross-objections was filed, are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act and they are applicable to the proceedings before the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Hart Kishan Singh v. B. Narayana. This case also arises under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. After referring to various Judgments, the learned Judges held as follows:-