Only interlocutory orders passed by the Rent Controller which affect the rights or liabilities of either of the parties are appealable under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

( 1 ) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of different interlocutory orders passed pending R. C. No. 141 of 1982 en the file of the I Additional rent Controller, Secunderabad filed under the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent t-nd Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the respondents herein for eviction of the appellant from the petition schedule premises and therefore they are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE respondents herein who are the landlords filed R. C. No. 141 of 1982 under the provisions of the Act before the Rent Controller, secunderabad on June 24, 1982 for eviction of the petitioner herein who is the tenant. The tenant filed a counter on February 2, 1983 and the landlords filed their rejoinder on October 24, 1983. It is stated that after the commencement of the trial in the eviction petition, the tenant filed on February 24, 1987 I. A. No. 122 of 1987 under Ordir 6 Rule 16 and Section 151 C. P. C. for striking out the pleadings and I. A. No. 123 of 1987 under Or. 7 R. 17 and section 151 C. P. C. for rejection of the eviction petition. On March 18, 1987 the landlords filed I. A. No. 139 of 1987 under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. for amendment of pleadings. The learned Rent Controller allowed I. A. No. 139 of 1987 filed by the landlords for amendment of pleadings and dismissed la. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1987 filed by the tena. it, by passing separate orders on June 8, 1987.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by those orders, the tenant preferred S. L. P. Nos. 7785, 7786 and 7787 of 1987 before the Supreme Court and those Special Leave petitions v ere dismissed as withdrawn on November ,16, 1987. Thereafter on December 1, 1987 the tenant preferred appeals before the Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad who is the appellate authority, against the interlocutory orders passed in I. A. Nos. 122, 123 and 139 of 1987 respectively. As there was delay in preferring the appeals, applications were filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. The learned Chief Judge rejected all the three appeals as not maintainable under Section 20 of the Act.

( 4 ) IT was alleged in the eviction petition that M/s. Divakar Maternity and Nursing Home, a partnership firm which is the first respondent herein purchased the petition schedule premises in the year 1981 for the purpose of construction of a modern maternity nursing home and a residential quarter to the resident medical officer. It therefore rsquested the tenant m/s Indian Cable Company Limited which is the petitioner herein through the letter dated June 18, 1981 to vacate the premises and deliver possession. The tenant sent a reply dated August 28, 1981 indicating its unwillingness to vacate the premises. It was further mentioned that the first petitioner/ respondent was running a Nursing Home at the premises bearing No. 12-10-392. Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad as tenant of Sri Hazi Syed Imam saheb and the premises under the occupation of the respondent/petitioner which was non-residential in character was required bonafide for the shifting of the Nursing home from the premises at Sitafalmandi to the petition schedule premises. It was mentioned in the eviction petition that it was filed under Section 10 (3) (ii) of the Act.

( 5 ) THE eviction petition was filed on June 24, 1982. More than four years thereafter, the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 122 of 1987 under Order 6 Rule 16 and Section 151 C. P. C. for striking out the pleadings on the ground that they were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and would prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the eviction petition. If also filed I. A. No. 123 of 1987 under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 c. P. C. for rejection ot the eviction petition alleging that it did not disclose the cause of action. Both those Interlocutory Applications were filed on february 24, 1987. A few days thereafter, the respondents herein filed i A.