( 1 ) 1. This revision arises out of the Judgment passed by the Rant control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Chirala in R C A No. 1 of 1979 confirming the order of the Principal District Munsif, Chirala in e A No 482 of 1976 in R C No. 4 of 1976.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the landlady. She filed rent control petition No. 4 of 1976 for eviction of the respondent herein who is the tenant, on two grounds, namely wilful default and personal requirement the respondent-tenant remained exparte. The Rent Controller, therefore, passed an order for eviction of the tenant from the premises and also one month s time was granted for vacating the premises. Evan after the expiry of one month s time the tenant did not vacate, Hence the land lady filed execution petition. The respondant tenani remained ex-parie. Execution was ordered and delivery of possession was affected on 13-7-1976. On 14-7-76 the respondent-tenant filed an application I A No. 1866 of 1976 for setting abide the ex-parte oider of eviction on the ground that no notice was served on him and he was not aware of the eviction order at all.

( 3 ) ALONG with I ANo. 1666 of 1976 he also filed E A No. 482 of 1976 for redelivery of the possession of the premises, The Rent Controller dismissed I A No. 1866 of 1976. Against that order of dismissal the respondent-tenant preferred appeal RCA No. 6 of 1977 in ths Court or Suporatnete judge, Chirala which is the Appellate Authority. The learned subordinate Judge allowed are oppeal and restored the rent control permon to the file of the Rent Controller. The land laay then filed revision C R P No 3938 ot 1977 in this court. This court dismissed the revision. Hence R C no 4 of 1976 was restored to the file of the Rent Controller As R C was restored, the E A No. 482 of 1976 which was fiied for redelivery came up for consideration before the Rent Cor. troller. The Rent Controller allowed the application on 15-11-79 and directed the landlady to redeliver the vacant possession to the tenant During the hearing of E A it was contended on behalf of the land lady that the land lady executed a save deed in respect of the house in favour of one, M. Jagannadnam and he was put in possession of the seme in pursuance of the said sale deed. The Kent Controller took into consideration this fact also and directed while allowing the E A that the landlady Is given one month s time from the data of the order to evict the third party (M. Jagannadham to whom possession was said to be given) and deliver vacant possession of the said premises to tha tenant. Against this order the landlady preferred appeal, RCA No. 1 of 1979, in the Rent Coniro! Appellate Court (Subordinate Judge s Couil), Chirala. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved with the said order the landlady preferred this revision.

( 4 ) SMT. Sesharajyam the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the otdei passed by the Rent Controller and which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority for re-delivery of possession under section 144 CPC. . is without jurisdiction, since the provisions of Section 144 C. P C cannot be invoked ty the Rent Contfollei and that at. the Rent controller cannot be treated a Court, he cannot exercise jurisdiction under sec. 144 C. P. C.

( 5 ) IT admits of no doubt that the Rent Controller is not a Civil court, it cannot therefore, exercise the provisions of Section 151 C. P C, while considering tha question whether ths provisions of Secsion 10 C P C can be exercised by the Rent Controller, a Division Bench of this Court held In Amrutlel Vs. Principal Rant Controller (1) 1978 (2) A L. T. Page 102 that though he performs the functions similar to Civil Court and belongs to a judicial cadre, ha is not a Civil Court and hence the provisions of Sec. 10 or Sec. 151 C. P. C. , cannot be availed of by the Rent Controller.

( 6 ) I think that this ruling will have application restricted to Se