The court affirmed that jurisdiction issues can only be decided by established forums, and changes involving procedural law are retrospective, impacting pending actions unless specified otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent.

I. Facts :

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 08.07.2024, passed in R.C.C.No.4 of 2020 (in short, R.C.C), pending in the court of Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, (learned Court) rejecting I.A.No.833 of 2024 filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure (for short, C.P.C) read with Section 151 C.P.C, to decide land lord and tenant relationship and the jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue as the Rent Court/Rent Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act, 1960”) was not constituted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the title of the C.R.P as also the impugned order, it is wrongly mentioned that the petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The correct fact is that the petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the Rent Control Case. He submitted that a memo to that effect has also been filed.

4. The respondent is the plaintiff. He filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2020 under Section 10 (i)(ib) 3(iii)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act, 1960) against the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises and deliver the vacant possession, on the plea of, the petitioner being the tenant and the respondent being the landlord. 5. In R.C.C, the petitioner filed I.A.No.833 of 2023 to decide the issue of “landlord and tenant relationship” and the jurisdiction of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Rent Controller court as preliminary issues. It was submitted inter alia that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The execution of the rent agreement dated 06.09.2018 was denied. The same was said to be forged and fabricated document.

6. The jurisdiction of the court was also challenged on the plea that, the Act, 1960 had been repealed. New Act namely A.P. Residential and Non Residential Premises Tenancy Act, 2017 (Act No.10 of 2018) (for short, the Act, 2018), came into force with effect from 28.03.2018 under which jurisdiction had been conferred on the Rent Court/Tribunal. The remedy of the respondent was pleaded to be to file a regular suit in the civil court as under the Act No.10 of 2018, the Rent Court/Tribunal had not been constituted. Plea was taken that the remedy could not be under the Act, 1960. The Court of Rent Controller, as such, had no jurisdiction.

7. The respondent filed counter to I.A No.833 of 2023, submitting inter alia that the I.A. had no merit. It was liable to be dismissed. The R.C.C was coming up for cross-examination of P.W.1 and to delay the proceedings, the I.A was filed. As the Rent Court/Tribunal had not been constituted under the Act, 2018, the Rent Control Court constituted under the Act, 1960 had the jurisdiction.

II. Order of the Court of Rent Controller dated 08.07.2024:

8. The learned Court of Rent Controller rejected the I.A.No.833 of 2023, holding that the Rent Court/Tribunal was not constituted under the Act No.10 of 2018. So, under the existing mechanism as per the Act, 1960, the dispute could be entertained and adjudicated. It re