* THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO + C.R.P.Nos. 1049 and 1053 of 2009 % Dated 19.03.2010 # Syed Abdul Aleem @ Rayees Pasha …Appellant AND $ Sujahat Ali …Respondent ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.R.Umnder Kumar ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Bajrang Singh Thakur <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred [1] 2001 (5) ALD 610 (DB) THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.1049 of 2009 AND C.R.P.No.1053 of 2009 Date:19.03.2010 Between: Syed Abdul Aleem @ Rayees Pasha …Appellant And/- Sujahat Ali …Respondent THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.1049 of 2009 AND C.R.P.No.1053 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The revision petitioner in the above two revision petitions is the landlord in R.C.No.74 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, At Hyderabad. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as ‘the landlord and the tenant’. 3. The landlord filed R.C.No.74 of 2006 and the same was disposed of by the I Additional Rent Controller on 20.03.2006 evicting the tenant therefrom on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and thereafter he filed E.P.No.14 of 2006 for evicting the tenant from the schedule mentioned property as per the orders passed in R.C.No.74 of 2006 on 20.03.2006. 4. It is the contention of the landlord that the warrant of eviction issued in E.P.No.14 of 2006 was executed against the tenant without any protest from him and accordingly, he was evicted by the bailiff of the Court from the schedule mentioned property by putting him in possession of the same. According to him, the tenant was evicted in execution petition on 07.07.2006 and the vacant possession was given to the landlord and the E.P. stood terminated. 5. Thereafter, the tenant filed I.A.No.216 of 2006 in R.C.No.74 of 2006 to set aside the ex parte order passed and there had been an elaborate enquiry in I.A.No.216 of 2006 wherein the witnesses were also examined. 6. In the course of enquiry in I.A.No.216 of 2006, the landlord filed I.A.No.18 of 2008 to recall PW-1 for the purpose of obtaining his signatures in open Court for sending them to the handwriting expert for comparison. He also filed I.A.No.19 of 2008 to send the admitted signatures of PW-1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures. 7. As could be seen from the order of the learned Rent Controller, he proceeded with the cross-examination of RW-1 as the landlord did not insist for disposal of I.A.Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008. However, he filed I.A.No.216 of 2006 at that juncture insisting upon the Rent Controller to dispose of the said applications and then to proceed with the further Cross Examination of RW-1. 8. I.A.No.254 of 2008 in I.A.No.216 of 2006 filed by the landlord was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that earlier the landlord did not insist for disposal of I.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2008 and further that even after completing the cross-examination of RW-1, the said applications can be disposed of. 9. Challenging the said order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad i.e. R.A.(SR) No.11900 of 2008 and the same was dismissed at the S.R. stage by the learned Chief Judge by his order dated 23.1.2009 holding that the appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller since it is an interlocutory order, against which an appeal is not maintainable. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed C.R.P.No.1053 of 2009. 11. Similarly, I.A.No.253 of 2008 was filed by the landlord under Section 151 of CPC to reject I.A.No.216 of 2006 on the ground that since the landlord was put in vacant possession of the schedule mentioned premises by means of executing warrant in E.P.No.14 of 2006, E.P. being terminated and no longer pending before the Rent Controller, he has no jurisdiction to entertain I.A.No.216 of 2006 which was filed by the tenant to set aside the ex parte order made in R.C.No.74 of 2006 against him. The learned Rent Controller after making enquiry into the said application dismissed the same on the ground that since the enquiry in I.A.No.216 of 2006 was in progress and the enquiry is in relation to the contention of the tenant that without serving summons on him, an ex parte eviction order was passed on 23.02.2006 against him and thus the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain I.A.No.216 of 2006. 12. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed RA (SR) No.11680 of 2008 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the learned Chief Judge by a similar order holding that the order does not result in final adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties and it is only an order whereunder a decision has been taken for regulating the procedure for final disposal of the case, the order being interlocutory not appealable and accordingly rejected the appeal at the S.R. stage. 13. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed C.R.P.No.1049 of 2009. 14. Thus, both the revisions filed by the landlord are before this Court. Since the parties are one and the same and both the revisions arose out of the same subject matter before the Rent Controller in R.C.No.74 of 2006 and also before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad they are being disposed of by the following common judgment: 15. Under Section 20 of the Act, an appeal lies against the order which is in the nature of affecting the rights of the parties, but no appeal lies against an interlocutory order. Similarly, under Section 22 of the Act, revision lies to the High Court against an order passed by the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act from an order passed by the Rent Controller in execution proceedings. Thus, a revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller when the main case is pending trial. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Act provides a complete mechanism for the appeal as well as the revision specifying the nature and extent of the powers of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction and as the Act being a self- contained code, the parties cannot invoke the powers under Section 115 of the CPC. However, in appropriate cases, the right of the party to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India is not taken away and they can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 22 for appropriate reliefs. But, this does not mean whenever an order is neither appealable nor revisable, the party can invariably invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India. A Division Bench of this Court in JALEEL KHAN v. M. KAMALAMMA[1] though held that in appropriate cases where the fact situation warrants a petition filed under Section 115 of CPC can be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the crucial question is in a given situation whether such a course is warranted. 16. The main thrust of the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlord is that since the vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property is handed over to the landlord in execution proceedings and thereafter E.P. being terminated, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed by the landlord to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. I absolutely see no force in the argument as the sub-rule 3 of Rule 8 of A.P. Buildings (lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 specifically provides that the affected party may within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the order apply to the Rent Controller by whom the ex parte order or the order of dismissal was passed, for an order to set aside the same and if the party satisfies the Controller, that the summons were not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the application was called on for hearing or that such default was occasioned due to circumstances beyond his control, the Controller shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order or the order of dismissal passed, as the Controller thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the enquiry application. The sub-rule also empowers the Rent Controller to stay all execution proceedings in pursuance of the ex parte order or the order of dismissal for default until, the disposal of the application. 17. While disposing of these revision petitions, this Court is not concerned with merits of the application filed by the tenant to set aside the ex parte order since it was a matter which has to be considered by the Rent Controller after making an enquiry into the same. This Court is only concerned with the question as to whether after the disposal of the E.P. by whatever means, an application to set aside the ex parte order passed by the Rent Controller is maintainable. The answer is in the affirmative because there is a specific provision under the rules to maintain such an application as indicated above. 18. Further, both the orders impugned passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad/Appellate Authority, are orders in respect of which there was no final adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties and those orders are only interim orders in the strict sense they relate to the future course of action to be adopted by the Rent Controller for the purpose of adjudicating the rights of the parties on merits. 19. Moreover, I.A.No.18 of 2008 filed by the landlord to recall PW-1 for the purpose of obtaining his signatures in open court and for sending them to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures and I.A.No.19 of 2008 filed by him to send the admitted signatures of PW-1 to the Forensic Science Laboratory are in fact the interlocutory applications in the interlocutory application filed by the tenant to set aside the ex parte order passed against him and while the said applications were being enquired into, the learned Rent Controller specifically mentioned in his order that the landlord did not insist for disposal of the said applications and therefore, he proceed with enquiry in the main I.A. in which the ex parte order was sought to be set aside. Filing another interlocutory application i.e. I.A.No.254 of 2008 insisting upon the Rent Controller to dispose of the above mentioned applications is absolutely unnecessary since the landlord can as well make an oral request to dispose of the said applications. Even otherwise, it is well within the competence of the Rent Controller to pass orders in the said applications as well as in the main interlocutory applications simultaneously and the learned Rent Controller only mentioned in his order that he could dispose of the said applications after completing cross-examination or RW-1. But, in spite of the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed appeals before the appellate authority which is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Filing I.A.No.253 of 2008 by the landlord under Section 151 CPC to reject I.A.No.216 of 2006 on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application after the disposal of E.P.No.14 of 2006 is also nothing but abuse of process of Court, the reason being, the Rent Controller is specifically empowered by sub-rule 3 of Rule 8 of A.P. Buildings (lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 to entertain such an application. Despite the fact that the Rent Controller by his reasoned and detailed order held that he has jurisdiction to entertain the said application, the landlord resorted to file an appeal against the said order which is not at all appealable and was rightly dismissed by the learned appellate authority at the S.R. stage. 20. Thus, both the impugned orders which are sought to be revised are neither appealable nor revisable since they are only orders passed to reduce the lengthy procedure with a view to finally dispose of the interlocutory application No.216 of 2006 pending before the learned Rent Controller and do not relate to the adjudication of rights of the parties. They being filed in utter disregard of the procedure contemplated under the Rent Control Act and Rules framed under the Act and as indicated above, they are nothing but abuse of process of court. They cannot be sought to be revised even by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. In view of the aforesaid findings, both the revision petitions being devoid of any merit, they are liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed with costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 19.03.2010 Note: L.R. copy to be marked B/O CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.1049 of 2009 AND C.R.P.No.1053 of 2009 Date:19.03.2010 [1] 2001 (5) ALD 610 (DB)