IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 32 (c) of Act 1960, if rent of a building situated in areas covered by Municipal Corporation in state exceeds Rs.3,500 p.m. and in other area Rs.2,000 p.m., provisions of Act will have no applications.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.— This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 22.12.2011 in R.A.No.116 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby he has reversed the order, dated 13.4.2010, in RC No. 26 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderbad.

2. The petitioners filed R.C.No.26 of 2010 seeking eviction of the respondent under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii)( a) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent raised an objection on the maintainability of eviction petition on the ground that even according to the petitioners, the rent of the building in question is Rs.3,500 per month and that as per the amended provisions of Section 32(c) of the Act, if the rent of the building exceeds Rs.2,000 in the areas other than the Municipal Corporation areas, the Rent Controller will cease to have jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction. The respondent further pleaded that the demised premises is admittedly situated in the Secunderabad Cantonment area and that therefore, it does not form part of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area and consequently it falls within the expression ‘in other areas’ under Section 32(c) of the Act. The petitioners contested the said plea of the respondent.

3. The learned Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad vide her order, dated 13.4.2011, rejected the preliminary objection of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed R.A.No.116 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was allowed by the lower appellate Court by order, dated 22.12.2011.

4. Before dealing with the case on merits, it needs to be noted that the order passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller is hard to decipher. The effort made by this Court to understand the said order has not paid off. Therefore, this Court delved into the reasons contained in the order of the lower appellate Court.

5. As noted above, the sum and substance of the case of the respondent is that on the facts pleaded by the petitioners, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction. The fact that the demised premises is situated within the Secunderabad Cantonment area is not in dispute. But, the question is whether the said Cantonment area falls within the Hyderabad Municipal Area or not.

The Government of India issued S.R.O.15E, dated 8.8.1973, published in Gazette of India Extraordinary August 10, 1973, whereby the Central Government has extended the provisions of the Act to the Secunderabad Cantonment area. By virtue of this notification, all the rent control cases under the Cantonment area are filed under the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that the Cantonment areas are under the control of the Central Government and being administered by separate Boards constituted under Chapter-III of the Cantonment Act, 2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Secunderabad Cantonment area forms part of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area. But for the Government of India’s notification referred to above, the provisions of the Act would not have attracted the buildings situated in the Secunderabad Cantonment area.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cantonment Board, Secunderabad v. G. Venketram Reddy and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1210. On a careful reading of the judgment, I am of the opinion that the same does not advance the case of the petitioners. In that case, the question was whether the expression ‘Municipality in State’ in Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 takes within its sweep the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation also. The issue, namely, whether the Cantonment was part of the Municipal Corporation or not has not fallen consideration of the Supreme Court. Under Section 32(c) of the Act, if the rent of a building situated in the areas covered by