(1) The revision petitioner is the respondent in r. C. C. No. 1/78 on the file of the rent controller (district munsif) , kothagudem. The eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default iu the payment of reut and for bonafide occupation. The revision petitioner denied being a wilful defaulter or that the respondent landlord bonafide required the premises for his personal occupation. Both the rent controller and the appellate authority (subordinate judge) held on merits that the respondent has made out both the grounds and have accordingly ordered eviction of the revision petitioner. These findings are not questioned in this revision. The revision petitioner also resisted the eviction on the ground that the a. P. Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960, is inapplicable to the buildings in question, on the ground that kothagudem is a deemed municipality and not a municipality notified under sec. 3 of the a. P. Municipalities act. Both the rent controller and the appellate - authority held that though kothagudem is not notified as a municipality under sec. 3 of the a. P. Municipalities act it is a deemed municipality under the laid act and the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 has application even to such deemed municipalities.
(2) It is the correctness of this view that is canvassed by the revision petitioner in this revision.
(3) Before adverting to that point, it should be stated that kothagudam area, prior to the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 1960, was governed by the provisions of hyderabad act 20 of 1954. By notification no. 15 dated 3 - 6 - 1955 the area included within the limits of kothagudem was notified under hyderabad act 20 of 1954. If the said notification so made in 1955 still continues to operate as a notification made under the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960, 1960, the question does not really arise whether the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 1960 would apply to areas comprised in deemed municipal ties. The building in question was constructed in the year 1945 by the father of the respondent at bhajana - mandir read, kothagudem.
(4) Under the material provisions of the second proviso to sec, 33 of the rent control act 1960, any notification issued under repealed acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this act, and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this act.
(5) That notification has not been modified or cancelled by any notification issued uuder sec. 1 (2) (c) of the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960, 1960. The notification issued under the hyderabad act 20 of 1954, therefore, continues to be operative over kothagudem.
(6) Mr. Raja rao has relied upon the provisions of the general clauses act dealing with the effect of repeal of an enactment. Having regard to the intention clearly expressed by the proviso to sec. 33 referred to above, the notification made under hyderabad act 20 of 1954 continues to be operative as a notification issued under the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960, 1960, notwithstanding the repeal of act 20 of 1954.
(7) Mr. Raja rao is, however, correct in this submission that the rent control act, 1960, does not have any application to areas comprised in deemed municipalities. To that extent the view was correctly expressed by my learned brother lakshminarayana reddy, j. In k. Bala narsu vs. Faiz mohmmed khan. That judgment, however, proceeded without referring to notification no. 15, dt. 3 - 6 - 1955 issued under the hyderabad act 20 of 1954. In the face of that notification, it will not, there fore, be correct to hold that no part of the deemed municipality of kothagudam and ramavaram is governed by the provisions of the rent control act, 1960. The rent control act, 1960, continues to apply to that part of kothagudem which is covered by the notification referred to above. As there is no dispute that the building in question is in kothagudem the rent controller has jurisdiction to have ordered eviction.
(8) Mr. Raja rao has lastly submitted that the matter may be referred to a division bench. I do not feel the necessity to do so for the reason bala narsu's case was decided without taking into account the notification made under act 20 of 1954. To that extent, the said decision becomes per incurium. The revision is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Time is granted to the revision petitioner till the end of march, 1984, to vacate the premises. Appeal dismissed