B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision filed by the petitioner claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased tenant, the landlady raised an important question as to whether a finding given by the civil Court on a reference made by the Rent Controller be challenged in an appeal under Section 20 of the Andhra pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 2 ) THE deceased tenant, Munnalal, filed R. C. No. 330 of 1984 on the file of the ii Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, (subsequently renumbered as R. C. No. 1038 of 1986) under Sections 14 and 19 of the said act, against the respondent-landlady claiming amenities of passage and lights. However, during the pendency of these proceedings, he died. Thereupon, the petitioner claiming to be the adopted son of the deceased filed an application in I. A. No. 865 of 1987 to come on record as the legal representative. The landlady denied the petitioner s claim and opposed the application. Therefore, a reference was made by the Rent Controller to the Civil court under Section 24 of the Act read with rule 19 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short the Rules ) for determination of the said disputed question. On receipt of the reference, the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad conducted an enquiry, during which both the parties let in evidence. Ultimately, the civil Court sent back the reference with a finding that the petitioner is not the adopted son as per the orders dated 19-3-1990. On the basis of the said finding, the Rent Controller, as per orders dated 31-7-1990, held that the application in r. C. No. 1038 of 1986 abated. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner, challenging the orders dated 19-3-1990 of the Civil court, filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act in R. A. No. 226 of 1990 which was dismissed holding that no such appeal lies. ( 4 ) SRI N. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that without the principal finding being challenged, the consequent order is only a formal one. Therefore, the finding being on a reference by the Rent controller, is very much appealable under section 20 of the Act. ( 4 ) SRI N. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that without the principal finding being challenged, the consequent order is only a formal one. Therefore, the finding being on a reference by the Rent controller, is very much appealable under section 20 of the Act. ( 5 ) SRI R. V. Prasad, Counsel appointed as amicus curiae (since none appeared on behalf of the respondent-landlady, though served with notice) contended that the order of the civil Court is only on a reference and hence not appealable. Further, it was contended that in the absence of an appeal against the orders dated 31-7-1990 of the Rent controller, the petitioner cannot assail the orders of the Civil Court on reference dated 19-3-1990 and more so when the subsequent order of the Rent Controller has become final. ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of considering the aforesaid question, it is necessary to notice section 24 of the Act and Rule 19 of the rules:"section 24. Proceedings by or against legal representatives:- (1) Any application made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken under this Act by or against any person, may in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representatives. (2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been made, preferred or taken, under this Act by or against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding, may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives. " ( 7 ) SUB-RULE (3) of Rule 19 which is relevant so far as this case is concerned, reads:" (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased person; such question shall be referred to a civil Court for determination. " ( 8 ) BOTH these provisions pertain to the continuation of proceedings by the legal representatives on the death of the original party. It is only in the event when a dispute arises as to whether a person is the legal representative or not, that the said question has to be referred to the civil Court for determination under Section 19 (3), which will be binding on the Rent Controller. Section 20 of the Act contemplates an appeal against the order passed by the Rent controller. Section 20 of the Act contemplates an appeal against the order passed by the Rent controller. It is well established that the right to appeal is creation of statute and is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. Further, such right being a vested one has to be regulated by the concerned statute. It is also well established that the Act is a self contained one in itself. In view of the specific provision under section 20, an appeal can lie only against the orders of the Rent Controller whereas in this case, the appeal was filed against the order of the Civil Court on reference by the rent Controller holding that the petitioner is not the legal representative of the original tenant, basing on which the Rent Controller held that the proceedings have abated. The finding or the orders passed by the Civil court on 19-3-1990 are only in pursuance of the reference made by the Rent Controller and therefore, it cannot be treated as an order of the Rent Controller for the purpose of Section 20 of the Act. It is only the consequent order dated 31-7-1990 wherein it was held that the proceedings have abated which is appealable and against which no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. The questions as to whether in an appeal against the orders of the Rent controller dated 31-7-1990 on the basis of the finding of the Civil Court, the appellate court can go into the correctness or validity of the findings given by the civil Court by reappreciating the evidence and material on record and come to a different conclusion and also as to whether the orders of the civil court dated 19-3-1990 can be treated as that of the civil Court to fall within the definition of a decree under Section 2 (2) of the C. P. C. or a regular appeal lies are all moot questions which need not be gone into at this stage especially when no appeal is filed by the petitioner against the subsequent order dated 31-7-1990. Therefore, these questions are left open to be considered in an appropriate case. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner did not file any appeal against the order dated 31-7-1990. Therefore, these questions are left open to be considered in an appropriate case. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner did not file any appeal against the order dated 31-7-1990. The present appeal is only filed against the order dated 19-3-1990 of the civil Court which cannot be entertained by the appellate authority under Section 20 of the Act. In view of the same, it has to be held that no appeal lies under Section 20 of the said Act against an order of a civil Court on reference by the Rent Controller in pursuance of the powers conferred under section 24 of the Act read with Rule 19 (3) of the Rules. The lower appellate authority has rightly rejected the same. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, I do not find any merits in the revision and it is therefore, dismissed. No costs. ( 11 ) BEFORE parting with the case, this court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Sri R. V. Prasad, amicus curiae.