Back
1963 Supreme(AP) 209
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Marrapu Venkataswamy - Appellant
Versus
Nadipalli Ramamohan Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 11-08-63
The Government can constitute an appellate authority under section 20 of the Act under section 35, which confers powers to remove difficulties, provided that the G.O. issued for this purpose is not inconsistent with the purpose of the Act.
Headnote:
ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT - SECTION 20, 35 - DELEGATION OF POWER - VALIDITY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 20 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTY - ESSENTIAL LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION - INCONSISTENCY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT JUDGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the judgment of the District Judge, Rajahmundry, allowing the respondent's appeal against the Rent Controller's order of dismissal of the respondent's eviction petition. The main contention was that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the appellate authority under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960) (the Act) was the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, and not the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned Government Order (G.O.) issued under section 35 of the Act, which conferred the power to hear appeals under section 20 on the District Judge, Rajahmundry, was valid and did not suffer from any infirmity. The court interpreted section 20 to mean that the appellate authority for the purposes of section 20 was the Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area from which the appeal arose. However, in the present case, there was no Subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the Rajahmundry taluk, which led to a difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of section 20. The court found that the G.O. was issued to remove this difficulty and was not inconsistent with the purpose of the Act, which was to provide for an appeal before a forum with original jurisdiction over the area concerned.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government could constitute an appellate authority under section 20 of the Act under section 35, which confers powers to remove difficulties. 2. Whether the impugned G.O. was valid and did not suffer from any infirmity. 3. Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 35 of the Act empowered the Government to make provisions to remove difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. 2. The impugned G.O. was issued to remove the difficulty arising from the absence of a Subordinate Judge with original jurisdiction over the Rajahmundry taluk, which prevented the filing of appeals under section 20. 3. The G.O. was not inconsistent with the purpose of the Act, which was to provide for an appeal before a forum with original jurisdiction over the area concerned. 4. The District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal by virtue of section 20 read with the impugned G.O.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the judgment of the District Judge.
( 1 ) THE problem which this Revision poses is whether the government can constitute an appellate authority under section 20 of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (XV of 1960), hereinafter called the Act, under section 35 which confers powers to remove difficulties. The facts leading to this question lie in a narrow compass and can quite briefly be stated. The respondent filed an application for eviction on the ground that he requires the premises for his personal occupation. That petition was resisted by the petitioner herein. The Rent Controller, Rajahmundry, dismissed the petition on 27th march, 1962. The respondent therefore went in appeal before the District Judge, east Godavary district at Rajahmundry. His appeal was allowed by the District judge on 2och December, 1962. It is this judgment of the appellate authority that is assailed in this Revision Petition.
( 2 ) THE principal contention of Mr. M. Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that, according to section 20 of the Act the appellate authority is the subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, and that the appeal therefore ought to have been filed before the Subordinate Judge. The Government quite erroneously conferred the power to hear appeals under section 20 on the District Judge, rajahmundry, through G. O. Ms. No. 575 dated nth October, 1961. His contention is that, the Government cannot amend section 20 of the Act and confer appellate powers on a distinctly separate authority than what is contemplated by section 20 of the Act. In order to appreciate the merits of this contention it is necessary to read sections 20 and 35 of the Act. Section 20 leads :" (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller may, within 30 days from the date of the 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 30 days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. "
( 3 ) THE other sub-sections are not material for our purpose. Section 35 is in the following terms:-" (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, in consequence of the transition to the said provisions from the corresponding provisions of the Act, which were in force immediately before the commencement of this Act. the Government may, by order in the Andhra pradesh Gazette, make such provisions as appear to them to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty. (2) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act (otherwise than in relation to the transition from the provisions of the corresponding Acts, which were in force before the commencement of this Act), the Government may, by order in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette , make such provisions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, as appear to them to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty. "
( 4 ) IT must be mentioned that admittedly the Subordinate Judge at Rajahmundry has no original jurisdiction over Rajahmundry taluk. After the Act came into force it was realised that in practical application of section 20 of the Act although appeals against the orders given by the Rent Controller are provided, section 20 mentions of a Suborinate Judge who has original jurisdiction, and as the Subordinate Judge at Rajahmundry has no original jurisdiction over Rajahmundry taluk, appeals could not be filed before the Subordinate Judge, and as no other appellate authority in the cases arising from the Rajahmundry taluk was constituted in effect a difficulty arose as to where the appeal should be filed. In order to remove this difficulty the government issued a G. O. Ms. No. 575 dated 11th October, 1961,
