THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 171 of 2009 Order: This CRP is directed against the order dated 17.12.2008 passed in R.A. No. 151 of 2007 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the order dated 02.07.2007 passed in EA No.48 of 2001 in EP No.13 of 2001 in RC No.479 of 2000 by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, was confirmed. The petitioner herein is the landlord of the petition schedule property. The first respondent herein, who claims to be the tenant of the petition schedule premises, filed O.S. No.5614 of 2000 and obtained status quo order in I.A. No.1015 of 2000 which is marked as Ex.A5 in E.A. No.48 of 2001. During subsisting of the said status quo order the petitioner herein filed eviction petition in R.C. No.479 of 2000 against the second respondent herein without making the first respondent herein who is the real tenant as a party to the said eviction petition. The second respondent herein remained ex parte and the petitioner herein obtained ex parte eviction order on 30.01.2001 and then filed EP No.13 of 2001 for execution of the said order of eviction and that the first respondent herein was illegally dispossessed though he was not a party to the said RC and EP and though status quo order was in force in I.A. No.1015 of 2000 in O.S. No.5614 of 2000 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Then the first respondent filed EA No.48 of 2001 in EP No.13 of 2001 to set aside the eviction order dated 03.04.2001 and seeking the petitioner herein to redeliver the schedule premises along with the articles as prayed for. The IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, having considered the entire material and oral and documentary evidence on record, observed as follows. “In this connection, I would like to say that no doubt the present petitioner was not added as party in R.C. No.479 of 2000 and also in the E.P. No.13 of 2001, but the said R.C and E.P were filed by the first respondent herein against the second respondent herein. It is also an admitted fact that the present petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No.5614 of 2000 along with I.A.1015 of 2000 against the first respondent; that the court had passed orders in I.A.1015 of 2000 stating that the present petitioner herein who is the plaintiff in OS.5614 of 2000 was not dispossessed without due process of law. Therefore, the saying of the first respondent that as per the orders of the court he filed the eviction petition against R2 herein who is real tenant and got evicted him through process of law is illegal, because there were no such directions from the Court, because R2 is not the party in O.S.5614 of 2000. It is clearly deposed by RW.1 that he had received the copies of Ex.A5, A9 and A10 on 02.11.2000, as I have already stated and the present R.C.479 of 2000 was filed on 11.12.2000 against R2 herein deliberately without adding the present petitioner as a party. The said attitude of the respondent No.1 clearly shows that he had played fraud on court in order to obtain the ex parte orders in the said R.C. with the collusion of R2. If really R2 is the tenant of R1, R2 would have appear before Court and adduce his side evidence to establish that he is the tenant of the premises, but he wantonly failed to appear before this Court and adduce his side evidence which deemed that he is sailing with the first respondent.” Ultimately, the claim petition filed by the first respondent was allowed directing the petitioner herein to redeliver the possession of the petition schedule premises along with the articles which are shown in Ex.C1 within a period of one month thereafter. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in R.A. No.151 of 2007 and the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by elaborate order dismissed the said appeal by holding that the appeal is not maintainable and the petitioner ought to have filed a revision petition. Before the appellate Court the first respondent had also contended that he filed O.S. No.5614 of 2000 and with regard to orders passed in I.A. No.1087 of 2000. Of course, it was also pleaded that the appeal was not maintainable and that the petitioner ought to have filed a revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The Appellate Court, having regard to the legal position, dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal was not maintainable and the petitioner ought to have filed a revision. Challenging the said order this revision has been filed. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the building and that he filed eviction petition which was ordered and that he was put in possession of the property as per the orders of the Court and that if at all the appeal was not maintainable the lower Court ought to have returned the appeal to enable the petitioner to file a revision. As far as the point as to whether the appeal is maintainable or revision is maintainable, the appellate Court has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Koneru Aruna Kumari v. Shaik Ali[1]. Admittedly, the petitioner has not cited any rule or any legal provision in support of his contention. The appellate Court has referred to Rule 23(7) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and also Section 15 of the Act and having regard to those provisions categorically held that the order passed in EA No.48 of 2001 is not an appealable order and the petitioner ought to have filed a revision. More over the conduct of the parties also has to be taken into consideration. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in filing RC without making the first respondent herein as party, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. More over I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with costs throughout. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 03.02.2011 Nsr [1] 1990(1) ALT Page 387