Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nallamilli Satyanarayana Reddy vs Tadi Venkata Reddy on 10 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)ALT534
Author: Y.V. Narayana
Bench: Y.V. Narayana
ORDER Y.V. Narayana, J.
1. The respondent in A.T.C.No. 35 of 1982 on the file of the learned Special Officer-cum-District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram, preferred this Civil Revision Petition against the Judgment dated 18-1-1991 passed in A.T.A. No. 78 of 1988 on the file of the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of eviction passed in A.T.C.No. 35 of 1982 on 12-8-1988.
2. The brief facts of the case are: The respondent-landlord filed the eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rents due for the years 1980-1981 and 1981-82. That petition was allowed. Against that order the petitioner preferred appeal A.T.A. No. 78 of 1988 which was dismissed, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Primary Tribunal. Against that order of the appellate Tribunal, the petitioner herein preferred this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C.
3. Whether a Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC lies against the order passed under Section 16(2) of the A.P. (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act) is the question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition.
4. Section 16(2) of the Act clearly lays down that the order passed by the appellate authority in appeal shall become final. So the intention of the Statute is clear from this provision that the dispute must come to an end in the appellate stage itself. A perusal of the provisions of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the Act is silent and does not confer any revisional jurisdiction to the High Court over the orders passed by the Special Officers and the appellate authorities, functioning under the Act. Section 17 of the Act goes to show that the Act intends to give finality to the decisions passed by the appellate authority then and there itself and so, the invocation of the provisions of C.P.C. and filing of a Revision under Section 115 CPC does not arise. The remedy 35 available to the litigant is only to file a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Now let us see whether the petitioner herein can be permitted to convert this revision petition into a revision petition under Article 227 or a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. A revision petition under Section 115 CPC is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and one cannot be identified with the other and hence a petition under Section 115 CPC cannot be converted into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The decision reported in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, lends full support to this view of mine.
7. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC by the petitioner against the orders of the appellate Tribunal is not maintainable in law nor can it be permitted to be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the revision petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed, but without costs.