S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of the proceedings initiated under the andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short "the Andhra Tenancy act" ). The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlord. (Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord ). The landlord filed A. T. C. No. 309/81 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Tanuku, praying for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule land on the ground of default in payment of rent for 1388 and 1389 faslies. On the basis of the material available on record the Special Officer ordered eviction of the tenant. Dissatisfied with the said order of eviction, the tenant filed an appeal a. T. A. No. 56/1985 in the Court of the District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. Thereafter the advocate of the tenant passed away. When on 16-8-1988 the case was taken up for hearing nobody was present for the tenant; the advocate had already died, and as the appellant was not aware of the death of his advocate, so he was not present. However, the appellate court decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the same. Having come to know of the dismissal of his appeal, the tenant filed I. A. No. 2478/89 under Section 151 C. P. C read with Rule 18 of A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Rules, 1980 (for short "the Andhra Tenancy rules") to set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal. By order dt. 22-10-1990 the learned District Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that as the appeal was dismissed on merits, the application for restoration of the appeal was not maintainable. It is the correctness of this order that is assailed in this c. R. P.

( 2 ) MR. C. V. N, Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order of the District Judge, dismissing the appeal on merits on 16-8-1988, was without jurisdiction, therefore, the order should have been construed as the order dismissing the appeal for default and the appeal should have been restored on the application of the petitioner. Sri R. Sreeramulu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that as the tenant and his counsel were absent on the date of the hearing of the appeal, the appellate court was justified in deciding the appeal on merits. As the appeal was decided on merits it could not be construed as having been dismissed for default, therefore the order under revision cannot be interfered with.

( 3 ) ON these rival contentions, the short question which arises for consideration is, whether the order of the appellate court dated 16-8-1988 dismissing the appeal on merits in the absence of the tenant and his counsel, can be construed as the order dismissing the appeal for default. If so, is the application to restore the appeal maintainable?

( 4 ) THE proceedings initiated under the Andhra Tenancy Act are governed by the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Tenancy Rules. We shall refer to the Rules dealing with appeals under the Act. The relevant rules are Rules 8, 9 and 18. Rule 8 deals with the procedure for filing the appeal, court fee, limitation, etc. Rule 9 enjoins that on receipt of an appeal under Rule 8, the district Judge shall fix the date on which and the time and the place at which the appeal shall be heard and shall issue notice thereof to the appellant and the respondent. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 provides that on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal under sub-rule (1) or any other date or dates to which the hearing may be adjourned, the District Judge shall give a reasonable opportunity to the parties to state their case and adduce their arguments and shall thereupon pass such orders as he deems fit. Rule 18 provides that all proceedings before the special Officer or the District Judge under the Act shall be summary and shall be governed, as far as may be, by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) IN Tungala Venkateswarlu vs. The District Judge, Guntur, which also arose out of proceedings initiat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document