( 1 ) THE important questions which arise in this batch of writ petitions and the civil revision petitions, are whether the appellate authority, named in Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, for short the Act, is persona designata; if so, whether the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution extends to transfer of the rent appeals from the file of persona designata to any of the Courts. The facts which give rise to these questions fall in a short compass and as they are common, I ll refer only to the facts is given in the affidavit accompanying writ petition No. 3204/86.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the land lord. He filed R. C. No. 341/71 against the fourth respondent, the tenant, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for eviction under Section 10 of the Act. The said RC was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 12-8-1981. The petitioner filed appeal, R. A. No. 420/81, in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, under Section 20 of the Act, which is pending. While so, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, second respondent transferred a batch of rent appeals to the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, the third respondent, under his administrative power. The validity of that order was questioned in this Court. While so, by an administrative order, in Proceedings RDC No. 843/e1/86 dated 12th March, 1986, the High Court transferred 185 rent appeals from the Court of the second respondent to the Court of the third respondent. It is the validity or this order of the High Court that is questioned in these cases by praying for writs of mandamus declaring that the impugned order of the first respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 20 of the Act. The learned consel appearing for the petitioners submit that under section 20 of the Act, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, is persona designata and he alone is competent to hear the appeals. The third respondent, namely, the Additional Chief Judge to whom the rent appeals are transferred has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals under the Act. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 submits that under Section 20 of the Act, the authorities specified in Sec. 20 of the Act are not personae designatae. The appeal is provided to the Court. He further submits that in CRP Nos. 1202, 1203 and 3793 of 1985, this court exercising power under Article- 227 of the Constitution ordered transfer of rent appeals to the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, therefore the impugned order of transfer of rent appeals, is valid.

( 3 ) IN view of these rival contentions, it would be useful to read Section 20 (1) of the Act, which is in the following terms :"20. Appeal : (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days, from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and elsewhere to the subordinate Judge, or if there are more than one Subordinate Judge, to the Principal Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area aforesaid. In computing the said period of thirty days, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be executed. "

( 4 ) FROM a plain reading of the section executed above, it is manifest that against an order of the Rent Controller an appeal is provided in the Cities of hyderabad and Secunderabad to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, elsewhere to the Subordinate Judge and if there are more than one Subordinate Judge, to the Principal Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area. It would also be appropriate to the notice the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Small Causes Courts Act (Act No. VI of 1330-F ). Under section 4, the Government has discretion to establish the Court of small causes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document