An order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting an amendment petition is not an appealable order, as it does not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties and is not a final order within the meaning of Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.

A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) TENANT is the petitioner herein. The respondent land lady filed c. No. 170 of 1975 before the Rent Controller for eviction of her tenant the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of the rears of rent during the period from 1-4-1974 to 30-4-1976. The tenant nied these allegations. Just before the commencement of the trial, the nd lady filed a petition in I A No. 711 of 1975 under order 6 Rule 17 read ith section 151 of the Code of civil procedure for the amendment of the iction petition by adding an allegation that the tenant committed wilful sfault in paying the arrears of rent during the subsequent period from May july, 1975. The Rent Controller rejected the amendment petition, against which R. A. No. 48 of 1976 was preferred and it was allowed by the Chief idge, City Small Causes Court. Hence this revision.

( 2 ) SRI Prakasa Rao the learned counsel for the Petitioner raised two mentions. (1) the appellate Court while reversing the order of the Rent ontroller erroneously exercised the jurisdiction which did not vest in it much as no appeal lies from the order passed on an interlocutory applt cation. Secondly the petition for amendment, if allowed, alters the very nature of the case which raises fresh cause of action. The landlady can as well file a separate petition for eviction on the ground which is sought to be raised by the inierlocutary application for amendment and therefore tie prejudice will be caused.

( 3 ) IN support of the first contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Ma Shwe Mya vs. Maung Mo Hnaung wherein he has been observed as under :"all rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure proper administration of justice and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised but none-the-less no power has been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by amendment, the subject matter of the suit. "

( 4 ) HE also relied on a Division Bench decision in Chagnalal (Died) sardarilal vs. N. Pershad In this case the facts in brief are the landlord had filed a petition under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (it) of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground that be had made unauthorised construction in the building. The tenant contended that he did not make any unauthorised constructions. During the enquiry, the landlord had filed a petition under section 11 of the Act for directing the respondent tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. The rent controller, as the landlord had filed a sale deed in his favour as also a rental deed alleged to have been executed by the respondent, held that prima facie there was the relationship of landlord and tenant and further holding that there was no harm in directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent into court and also ordered that arrears of rent be deposited within 15 days from thai order. Against that order the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court and the appellate court held that the Rent controller had without making further enquiry bad ordered the appellant to deposit the arrears, that this type of order amounted to shirking the responsibility to enquire into and give a finding as to the points at issue and as no such enquiry was held, the appellate court remanded the case for taking evidence and disposing of the same according to law. Against said appellate order, revision was preferred. In the revision, the contention was that the order of the Rent controller was not appealable and the appellate court ought not have entertained the appeal.

( 5 ) DURING the course of the proceedings before the rent controller while P. W. 1 was ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document