ORDER :

Heard Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against an Order dated 06.12.2021 in I.A.No.74 of 2020 in R.C.C.No.34 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The petitioner herein, who is a tenant filed the above referred R.C.C, seeking an order granting permission to deposit the rents in respect of the petition schedule property at the rate of Rs.2,900/- per month w.e.f., 01.08.2018 to till date and to deposit the future rents to the credit of the proceedings before the Court under Section 8(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”). In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the above mentioned miscellaneous application i.e., I.A.No.74 of 2020, inter alia, seeking to struck off the defence of the 1st respondent on the premise that there is no authority or authorization to represent the respondent-society and in the absence of any proof of authority of the Secretary to represent the society, as duly elected and authenticated by the Registrar of Societies, the respondents are not entitled to file counter representing the 1st respondent and that consequently the defence put up by the respondents is non-est and liable to be rejected.

4. The respondents filed counter to the said application and contested the matter by taking a plea, inter alia, that the evidence regarding the authority of the Secretary will be filed at the time of the Trial that the petition in question is premature and liable to be dismissed.

5. The Learned Rent Controller after considering the contentions advanced by the both the parties dismissed the application, inter alia, opining that there is no provision in the Rent Control Act for the tenant, to seek striking of defence when he filed petition under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act admitting the ownership of the respondents and further that such right is available only to the landlord and that too, when he filed a petition under Section 10(2) of the Rent Control Act on the ground of willful default and when the tenant failed to pay the rents as ordered by the Court under Section 11(4) of the Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

6. The counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the Learned Rent Controller failed to consider the case of the petitioner in a proper perspective and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with the Court. He submits that unless the respondents establish their authority to depose on behalf of the 1st respondent, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, they cannot be permitted to adduce any evidence by deposing on behalf of the association. The learned counsel contends that the material on record would go to show that the registration of the society was not renewed after 1968. He further contends that where no adequate provision is made in the Act or Rules, the provisions of C.P.C are applicable and therefore the present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and seeks to set aside the order under challenge.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the order under challenge, contends that the same contains cogent reasons and warrants no interference by this Court. The learned counsel specifically contends that in fact, no Revision lies against an interlocutory order passed in the proceedings under the Rent Control Act either under Section 115 of CPC or under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contentions advanced, the learned counsel places reliance on the decisions in Md. Kutubiddin and others vs. Bhaikar Raja Mitraji Anand Kumar and others, 2000 (1) ALT 83 and B. Chinnva Raju vs. B.V. Rama Rao, 2001 (6) ALT 93.

8.