( 1 ) THE civil revision petition was admitted on 18-7-2003. But, however in c. M. P. No. 15398 of 2003 stay was rejected. The learned Counsel Sri D. S. N. V. Prasad babu representing Miss. G. Manjula learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though in similar matters stay had been granted, in this matter stay had been rejected.

( 2 ) SRI V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel representing the respondents had opposed the matter and both the Counsel had advanced elaborate arguments. In view of the same, with the consent of both the counsel, the main civil revision petition itself is taken up for hearing and the same is being disposed of.

( 3 ) THE present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioner-2nd respondent-petitioner in IA. No. 1234 of 2002 in R. C. C. No. 17 of 2000 on the file of the rent Controller, Tenali. The said application was filed under Order 18 Rule 5 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "code"), to record the evidence in the main R. C. C. , in open Court and then to post the matter for cross-examination.

( 4 ) IT is stated that the petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in the main R. C. C. , and the 1st respondent herein who is the petitioner in the main R. C. C. , gave chief examination in the form of an affidavit prepared by her Advocate outside the Court. It is further stated that in view of Order 18 rule 5 of the Code, the evidence i. e. , both chief and cross-examination are to be recorded in open Court under the supervision and personal direction and in the presence of the Judge or from the dictation of the judge directly on typewriter. Hence, taking chief examination in the form of an affidavit prepared outside the Court will not be evidence failing under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code. The said application was opposed. It was stated by the 1st respondent in the said application that she is aged about 85 years suffering from Cancer, B. P. and Sugar and has prayed for the dismissal of the said application.

( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller, Tenali after considering the respective contentions of the parties ultimately had dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the said application, 2nd respondent had preferred the present civil revision petition.

( 6 ) SRI Prasad representing Miss manjula, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 8, Rule 11, Rule 12 and also Rule 13 of the code and had submitted that the Code had made a clear distinction between appealable matters and other matters and in the case of appealable matters, in view of Order 18 rule 5 of the Code, evidence has to be recorded in open Court only and even chief examination cannot be in the form of an affidavit. The learned Counsel had also explained that in the absence of any amendments to the other provisions of the code, it should be taken that Order 18 Rule 5 of Code is applicable even to the matter on hand, since this is an appealable Order i. e. , ultimate decision in the eviction petition is appealable under Section 20 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960, (hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience ). The learned Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the provisions of the C. P. C. , are made applicable even to rent control proceedings, Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code is also applicable and hence, the dismissal of the application by the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained.

( 7 ) PER contra, Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents had submitted that in view of the clear provisions of Order 18 rule 4 of the Code, the chief examination can be received in the form of an affidavit and hence, the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller is well in accordance with law. The le