Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed challenging an order dated 17. 2008 passed by a learned Judge on the Original Side of this Court, whereby the learned Judge refused to transfer R.C.O.P. No.193 of 2006 pending on the file of the XV Small Causes Court/Rent Controller, Chennai to the file of this Court, to be tried along with the suit in C.S. No.51 of 2006 and for stay of further proceedings before the Rent Controller. We find that the respondent/landlord has filed a rent control proceeding in the XV Small Causes Court/Rent Controller, Chennai, inter alia, on the ground that the present appellant has not paid the rent in respect of the holding.

2. We are not going into the merits of the controversy in the said rent control proceeding. We find that the present appeal is not maintainable for various reasons. First of all, it has been held by several High Courts that a proceeding pending before the Rent Controller cannot be transferred to the High Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the judgment in L.K. Phanesh Babu vs. Mohd. Akbar reported in

(A.I.R. 2003 A.P. 168), a learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to a finding that the Rent Control Act and the Rules made thereunder constitute a complete Code covering the proceedings under the said Act and even with regard to the transfer of such proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as before the Appellate Authority, provisions are made in the Act and the Rules itself. Therefore, a petition for transfer of the proceeding under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to the High Court is not maintainable [See paragraph 11 at page 175] :

"11. If we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the above decision relied upon by both the parties, though it was held that the Rent Control Court is a Civil Court, but not in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, though it was held that where the provisions of the Rent Control Act are silent, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, but as already held that the Rent Control Act and the Rules made thereunder are complete code covering the proceedings under the said Act. Even with reference to the transfer of the proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as before the Appellate Authority, it is provided under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. But, however, there is no provision for transfer of a proceeding from the Rent Control Court to any other Civil Court. In fact, the powers of ordering eviction under the grounds specified under the Act are exclusively conferred on the specified or notified courts or the authorities. Therefore, such power conferred by Notification under the provisions of the Act cannot be conferred by this Court by transferring a rent control proceedings pending on the file of the Rent Controller to any Civil court, as such powers are vested only in Government. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking transfer of the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller to the Civil court."

A similar view has been taken in the matter of Abid Ali vs. District Judge, Bahraich reported in (1987 ALL. L.J. 179), whereby a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the Buildings Act is a special Act, while the Civil Procedure Code is a general enactment and after coming to the said finding, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that a proceeding which is pending before the Rent Controller under the Buildings Act cannot be transferred to the High Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. Relying on the said judgment in Abid Alis case, another learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Ganga Ram Dohrey Vs. State of U.P. reported in (A.I.R. 2002 Allahabad 238), came to the same finding. We are in agreement with the aforesaid findings rendered by the Allahabad High Court and the Andhra Pradesh Hig