( 1 ) THIS revision petition is preferred against the Orders dated 01-12-1997 in i. A. No. 396 of 1997 in R. C. No. 269 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Rent controller, Secunderabad.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord in R. C. No. 269 of 1995. The respondent filed an eviction petition on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement of the premises which have been let out to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted that application denying the alleged wilful default and he also disputed the claim of bona fide requirement. The evidence has been let in or both sides and when the matter is posted for arguments, the tenant filed I. A no. 396 of 1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure code for amendment of his counter adding para-5 (a) to the effect that as successor of his mother, the respondent-landlord became the owner of the adjacent shop bearing No. 34 and that the landlord also got issued notice to the tenant of that shop and as such the landlord could as well seek eviction of the tenant of that shop and the landlord filed the present eviction petition with a view to enhance the existing rent and that the alleged requirement is mala fide.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the landlord and the tenant, the learned Rent Controller dismissed that petition observing that the landlord has got the right to choose any of the premises owned by him for his requirement.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED of that order, the tenant has come up with this revision petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller in rejecting the petition for amendment is erroneous; that the revision petitioner came to know subsequent to filing of the counter in the eviction petition that the landlord came into possession of a non-residential shop in the same building on third floor and as such the claim of the landlord that the suit premises is required bona fide is not maintainable; that the impugned order is not a speaking order and that the amendment can be allowed at any stage for adjudicating the matter in a proper way.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord on the other hand submitted that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and as such no revision lies under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the Act ) and, therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord further contends that the revision petitioner has been adopting dilatory tactics with a view to delay the proceedings; that the present application for amendment of his counter has been filed at the belated stage of arguments; that there are no merits in the petition; that the landlord has not come into possession of non-residential accommodation subsequent to the filing of the petition as alleged and that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether this Court can entertain the present revision petition either under Section 22 of the Act or under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller on 01-12-1997 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for amendment of his counter? If it is so, whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on merits?

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY the present revision petition has been filed under Section 22 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the present revision petition could be entertained under Section 22 of the Actor under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. For proper appreciation, it is necessary to extract Section 22 of the Act which reads as follows: "22. Revision :- (1) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and exami