( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by a land-lord plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Asifabud dated 30-10-1987 passed in AS No. 6 of 1985. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court i. e. District Munsifs Court, Sirpur dated 18-2-1985 in OS No. 75 of 1983 and consequently dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff has come up in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the appellate Court is in error in holding that the suit itself is not maintainable-He submitted that the suit is maintainable, since the property in question is situated outside the Municipal area. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside

( 3 ) FROM a reading of the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, I find that the present appellate filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,275. 00 towards arrears of rent from 13-10-1980 to 12-9-1983 for 35 months and for mesne profits from 13-9-1983 at Rs. 100. 00 per month and also for recovery of possession. The trial Court decreed the suit. But, the argument in the appellate Court was that the area where the suit property is situated is covered by the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short "rent Control Act") and hence the suit would not be maintainable, whereas the contention of the plaintiff was that the Rent Control Act was not applicable to the suit schedule properly. But before the appellate Court, both parties submitted that the suit premises leased out to the defendant is situated within Sirpur area of Kagaznagar. It is stated that the Sirpur Paper Mills is situated in an area called Kagaznagar area and the Government notified the area in G. O. Ms. No. 412, dated 21-5-1983 and published in A. P. Gazette Extraordinary No. 203, dated 3-6-1983. That notification was issued under Section 3 of A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 read with Section 389-A of the A. P. Municipalities Act, Section 389-A reads as under :"389-A Notified Area :-- (1) The Government may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette declare any local area to be a notified area, for the purpose of application of all or any of the provisions of this Act in the said notified area. " (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) For the purpose of any provisions of this Act which may be applied or adopted to a notified area the Committee appointed for such area shall be deemed to be a Council under this Act and the area shall be deemed to be a Municipality. "

( 4 ) G. O. Ms. No. 412 dated 21-5-1983 has been specifically notified in Section 389-A of the A. P. Municipalities Act and if that is so Kagaznagar Area which is a notified area shall be deemed to be a Municipality. From this it follows that the Rent Control Act would be made applicable since Section 1 (2) (a) of the Rent Control Act, provides that this Act, except sub-section (2) of Section 3, shall apply to the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and to all Municipalities in the State of Andhra Pradesh. From this definition it is clear that Kagaznagar area being a deemed Municipal area under the A. P. Municipalities Act, the Rent Control Act would be applicable, since the Act is made applicable to all the Municipalities in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Keeping this principle of law, the appellate Court held that the present suit would not be maintainable against the tenant and accordingly dismissed the suit.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the entire suit could not have been dismissed since for arrears of rent the suit would be maintainable under Section 9 of CPC and there is no provision for recovery of arrears of rent under [he Rent Control Act. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that