ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This Revision is directed against an order passed in I.A.No.217 of 1998 in R.C.A.No.27 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 22-1-1998.
2. The Revision Petitioner filed an application I.A.No.217 of 1998 in R.C.A.No.27 of 1995 under Section 25 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act') to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for verification of the State Bank of India and Treasury records as per the enclosed Xerox copy of chalan receipt for the month of June 1988 bearing No.977 in order to know whether the petitioner deposited rent for June 1998 in the interest of justice and equity. The court below by order dated 22-1-1998 had dismissed the said application as not maintainable under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed.
3. Sri Ramgopal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner had made elaborate submissions both on the maintainability of the revision and also on merits of the matter. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to Section 22 of the Rent Control Act, which reads as follows:
'Revision.
(1) The High Court may at any time on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the Controller in execution under Sec.15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under Sec.20 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or of propriety of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
(2) The costs of and incident to all the proceedings before the High Court under sub section (1) shall be in its discretion.
4. The learned counsel had contended that the expression 'proceeding taken under this Act' will include even the orders of this nature and hence revision is maintainable. The learned counsel also had contended that the appellate Court is also having power to appoint a Commissioner. The learned counsel also had drawn by attention to Rule 22(3) of the Rules and had contended that since verification of the records is only a ministerial act it can be done by a Commissioner and the Court below erred in dismissing the application as not maintainable.
5. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent after taking me through different provisions of the Act had submitted that the present revision is not maintainable. Both the counsel had relied upon several decisions to substantiate their rival contentions.
6. The order impugned in the revision is the rejection of an application for appointment of a Commissioner as not maintainable by the appellate authority. On the question of maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in SHAIK BANDAGI SAHEB v. SHAIK NURULLA SAHEB (1); KUTUBUDDIN v. B.R.M. ANANDA KUMAR (2); SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. T.V.N. PRASAD (3) and M.NAGENDER RAO v. B.M.LAKSHMAIAH (4).
7. From the reading of Section 22 of the Act, it is clear that a Revision against an interlocutory order in an appeal is not maintainable and revision under Section 22 is maintainable only against an order passed in appeal under Section 20 of the Act or Section 15 of the Act. When specific provision is there under the Act, recourse cannot be taken to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence in any view of the matter, the Revision is not maintainable under the Act. Since the Revision itself is not maintainable, the other contentions need not be considered while disposing of the Revision.
8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri Ram Gopal filed two applications, one seeking permission to urge additional grounds and another application seeking permission to convert the Revision into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the interests of justice. In the light of the view expressed by me regarding the maintainability of the Revision as already discussed supra, I do not think that it is a fit case where the discretion is to be exercised in according permission to the Revision Petitioner to convert the matter into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the opinion expressed by me, it is not necessary to go into the additional grounds raised by the Revision Petitioner.
9. It is brought to my notice that R.C.A.No.27/95 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is sufficiently an old matter and hence a direction may be given for its speedy disposal. Hence, in the interest of justice I direct the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to dispose of R.C.A.No.27/95 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, and in the circumstances no order as to costs.