( 1 ) THERE are three revision petitions before us filed under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). CRP No. 346 of 1996 and CRP No. 2384 of 1996 are filed by the tenant. CRP No. 2306 of 1996 is filed by the landlord. Both the tenant and the landlord question the order of the appellate Authority under the said Act (Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) fixing the rent of the demised building at Rs. 650. 00 per month and directing payment of arrears at that rate from the month of December, 1991. Whereas the landlord contend that the enhancement or fixation is too law, the tenant complains that the enhancement from Rs. 210. 00 to Rs. 650. 00 is quite high. It is the contention of the tenant that such enhancement is not warranted and the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority have no jurisdiction to do so.

( 2 ) THE decision of the appellate authority fixing the rent as above is a sequel to the judgment of the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the landlord i. e. , SLP (Civil) 22602 of 1994. Earlier, the revision petition filed by the tenant against determination of fair rent was allowed by the learned single Judge of this Court who issued directions to the Rent Controller to determine fair rent in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. In doing so, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the decision in Md. Ataur Rahman Khan v. Md. Kamaluddin Ahmed, 1987 (1) APLJ 215 striking down Section 4 of the Act was no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sant Lal Bharti v. Sate of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 485. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the landlord on the following ground : ". . . . . , the declaration given by it that Section 4 was ultra vires could not be put at naught by a decision given by this Court in respect of another Act. The proper course for the learned single Judge was to refer the matter to the Division Bench. In absence of any such decision by a larger Bench, the section could not revive. so holding, the Supreme Court further held that the following direction issued by the High Court should stand deleted : "the Rent Controller is directed to proceed with the determination of fair rent in terms of Section 4 of the A. P. Rent Control Act expeditiously. "the Supreme Court left it open to the appellate Court to decide the correctness of the order passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent. This decision of Supreme Court is reported 1995 (3) SCC (Supplement) Page 668.

( 3 ) AFTER the arguments in the C. R. Ps. were heard in part, the landlord, by way of abundant caution filed W. P. No. 14813 of 1997 challenging sub-sections (2) (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act and seeking a declaration that the said provisions are violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. S. R. Nayak, J. , having admitted the Writ Petition directed it to be tagged on to CRP No. 346/96 etc. Hence that writ petition has also been posted for hearing before us.

( 4 ) A reference made by the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Guntur under Section 113, read with Order XLVI, Rule 1 of CPC while dealing with a rent appeal is also before us. It is R. C. No. 8 of 1985. The learned Subordinate Judge entertained a doubt whether sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act remains intact and whether the decision of this Court in Ataurrahman Khan s case (supra) should be understood as declaring sub-sections (2) to (4) only as unconstitutional, In other words, the question on which reference has been made is whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to fix fair rent under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act without reference to the criteria laid down in sub-sections (2) to (4 ). The Subordinate Judge expressed the prima facie view that this Court intended to declare subsections (2) to (4) as unconstitutional leaving intact sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 4 on the Statute book.

( 5 ) WE shall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document