THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY C.R.P.No.431 OF 2018

ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P.

Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘Rent Control Act’) challenging the order dated 6th December, 2017 in I.A.No.28 of 2017 in R.A.No.17 of 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judge (FAC), City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application filed under Section 20(2) of the Rent Control Act for suspending operation of eviction order dated 06.01.2017 passed in R.C.No.11 of 2015 by the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the enhanced rent from the date of filing the petition and continue to pay the same till disposal of appeal.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that in the absence of any specific provision under Section 20(2) of the Rent Control Act requiring the petitioner/tenant to deposit rent at enhanced rate, the Court below is not justified in passing the impugned order to deposit the enhanced rate of rent, while exercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C. by the appellate Court is illegal and when there is a specific provision in the Rent Control Act, the Court cannot invoke the provisions of C.P.C. and pass such order, issuing a direction to deposit rent at 50% of rent enhanced rate.

3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions placing reliance in Nagindas Ramdas v

Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and others1, Astratlal v The Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and another2 and Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V Federal Motors (P) Ltd., [(2005) 1 SCC 705] . Relying on the above judgments, counsel for the petitioner distinguished the principles laid down in Atma Ram’s case referred supra and mainly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Astratlal’s case referred supra, wherein it was specifically held that when there is a specific provision under the Rent Control Act, the Courts cannot invoke the power under C.P.C. to issue such direction and thereby the impugned order passed by the Court below is erroneous on the face of record and prayed to set aside the

same.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order in all respects and prayed to dismiss the revision.

5. The petitioner filed petition under Section 20(2) of the Rent Control Act, which deals with power of the Court to grant stay of all further proceedings in the matter pending decision in the appeal. sub-section (1) deals with right of the aggrieved person to file an appeal and Sub-section (2) deals with to grant stay. According to sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Rent Control Act, on preferring appeal, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter, during pendency of the appeal. But no powers are conferred on the Court to issue any other direction like payment of rent at enhanced rate etc. Therefore, Section 20(2) of the Rent Control Act cannot be equated as Order XLI Rule 5 C.P.C.

1 (1974) 1 SCC 242 2 (1978) 2 ALT 102

6. In the facts of the case, the petitioner filed an appeal against the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and which is pending for adjudication before the appellate authority. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent also filed petition under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act and the Court determined the fair rent payable for the premises @ Rs.20,640/- @ Rs.80/- per sq. feet per month. Aggrieved by the order passed under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act, the tenant preferred appeal, which is subject matter of another appeal. But the appellate Court issued a direction to deposit 50% of the rent at enhanced rate i.e. subject matter of another appeal pending before the Court. The said direction to the extent of depositing the rent is challenged in the revision.

7. In Atram Ram Properties’s case referred supra, wherein the facts disclosed that the tenant whos