P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE civil revision petition was admitted on 18-7-2003. But, however in c. M. P. No. 15398 of 2003 stay was rejected. The learned Counsel Sri D. S. N. V. Prasad babu representing Miss. G. Manjula learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though in similar matters stay had been granted, in this matter stay had been rejected. ( 2 ) SRI V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel representing the respondents had opposed the matter and both the Counsel had advanced elaborate arguments. In view of the same, with the consent of both the counsel, the main civil revision petition itself is taken up for hearing and the same is being disposed of. ( 3 ) THE present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioner-2nd respondent-petitioner in IA. No. 1234 of 2002 in R. C. C. No. 17 of 2000 on the file of the rent Controller, Tenali. The said application was filed under Order 18 Rule 5 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "code"), to record the evidence in the main R. C. C. , in open Court and then to post the matter for cross-examination. ( 4 ) IT is stated that the petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in the main R. C. C. , and the 1st respondent herein who is the petitioner in the main R. C. C. , gave chief examination in the form of an affidavit prepared by her Advocate outside the Court. It is further stated that in view of Order 18 rule 5 of the Code, the evidence i. e. , both chief and cross-examination are to be recorded in open Court under the supervision and personal direction and in the presence of the Judge or from the dictation of the judge directly on typewriter. Hence, taking chief examination in the form of an affidavit prepared outside the Court will not be evidence failing under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code. The said application was opposed. It was stated by the 1st respondent in the said application that she is aged about 85 years suffering from Cancer, B. P. and Sugar and has prayed for the dismissal of the said application. The said application was opposed. It was stated by the 1st respondent in the said application that she is aged about 85 years suffering from Cancer, B. P. and Sugar and has prayed for the dismissal of the said application. ( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller, Tenali after considering the respective contentions of the parties ultimately had dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the said application, 2nd respondent had preferred the present civil revision petition. ( 6 ) SRI Prasad representing Miss manjula, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 8, Rule 11, Rule 12 and also Rule 13 of the code and had submitted that the Code had made a clear distinction between appealable matters and other matters and in the case of appealable matters, in view of Order 18 rule 5 of the Code, evidence has to be recorded in open Court only and even chief examination cannot be in the form of an affidavit. The learned Counsel had also explained that in the absence of any amendments to the other provisions of the code, it should be taken that Order 18 Rule 5 of Code is applicable even to the matter on hand, since this is an appealable Order i. e. , ultimate decision in the eviction petition is appealable under Section 20 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960, (hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience ). The learned Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the provisions of the C. P. C. , are made applicable even to rent control proceedings, Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code is also applicable and hence, the dismissal of the application by the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) PER contra, Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents had submitted that in view of the clear provisions of Order 18 rule 4 of the Code, the chief examination can be received in the form of an affidavit and hence, the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller is well in accordance with law. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 8 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Rules (hereinafter in short referred to as "rules for the purpose of convenience) and had submitted that in view of the clear language of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, it cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller is illegal. It was further contended that if the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are accepted, then it would amount to defeating the very purpose and the object of the Amendments introduced by the amending Acts of the Code of Civil procedure i. e. , Act 46 of 1999 and Act 22 of 2002. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the Apex Court had also upheld the constitutional validity of these provisions and hence, the said question cannot be reagitated again. ( 8 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 9 ) THE question involved in the present civil revision petition is no doubt very short and simple, but is of general importance. However, in the present petition, this question has to be decided in relation to a Rent Control proceeding. Rule 8 (2) of the Rules specifies "the Controller shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their case. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses if any examined on either side and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties, pass orders on the said application". It is needless to say that these rules had been framed by exercise of the powers under section 30 of the Act. It is needless to say that these rules had been framed by exercise of the powers under section 30 of the Act. ( 10 ) ORDER 18 Rule 5 of the Code dealing with how evidence shall be taken in appealable cases reads as hereunder: ( 11 ) HOW evidence shall be taken in appeasable cases:- In cases in which an appeal is allowed, the evidence of each witness shall be: (A) taken down in the language of the Court: - (i) in writing by, or in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of, the Judge, or (ii) from the dictation of the Judge directly on a typewriter; or (B) if the Judge, for reasons to be recorded, so directs, recorded mechanically in the language of the Court in the presence of the Judge. ( 12 ) ORDER 18 Rule 4 of the Code, as substituted by Act 46 of 1999 and also Act 22 of 2002 reads as hereunder:recording of evidence: (1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence: provided that where documents are filed and the parries rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court. (2) The evidence (cross-examination and reexamination) of the witness in attendance, whose evidence (examination-in-chief) by affidavit has been furnished to the Court shall be taken either by the Court or by the commissioner appointed by it: provided that the Court may, while appointing a commission under this sub-rule, consider talcing into account such relevant factors as it thinks fit: (3) The Court or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall record evidence either in writing or mechanically in the presence of the Judge or of the Commissioner, as the case may be, and where such evidence is recorded by the Commissioner he shall return such evidence together with his report in writing signed by him to the Court appointing him and the evidence taken under it shall form part of the record of the suit. (4) The Commissioner may record such remarks as it thinks material respecting the demeanour of any witness while under examination: provided that any objection raised during the recording of evidence before the commissioner shall be recorded by him and decided by the Court at the stage of arguments. (5) The report of the Commissioner shall be submitted to the Court appointing the commission within sixty days from the date of issue of the commission unless the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing extends the time. (6) The High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be, shall prepare a panel of commissioners to record the evidence under this rule. (7) The Court may by general or special order fix the amount to be paid as remuneration for the services of the commissioner. (8) The provisions of Rules 16, 16a, 17 and 18 of Order XXVI, insofar as they are applicable, shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commission under this rule. ( 13 ) LIKEWISE Rule 8 of Order 18 of the code deals with memorandum when evidence not taken down by Judge, Rule 11 deals with questions objected to and allowed by Court, Rule 12 deals with remarks on demeanour of witnesses and Rule 13 deals with memorandum of evidence in unappealable cases. ( 14 ) IT is no doubt true that a dichotomy was drawn between the appealable cases and other cases in the case of recording of evidence and on the strength of these provisions, an argument was built up that in view of the fact that as against an- order made by the Rent Controller, an appeal lies, the affidavit form of evidence relating to chief examination is impermissible in view of Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code. It may also be relevant to have a look at Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code, as it stood before the amendment, which reads as follows:"the evidence of the witness in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Judge. " ( 15 ) IT is no doubt true that several drastic changes had been introduced by introducing suitable Amendments by the amending Acts as aforesaid by substituting order 18 Rule 4 of the Code. " ( 15 ) IT is no doubt true that several drastic changes had been introduced by introducing suitable Amendments by the amending Acts as aforesaid by substituting order 18 Rule 4 of the Code. It is also needless to mention that the validity of the Amending Acts already had been questioned which had been up-held by the apex Court. ( 16 ) IN a decision in Khandesh Spg. and wg. Mills v. R. G. K. Sangh, AIR 1960 SC 571 , the Apex Court while dealing with the effect of Section 118 of the Bombay industrial Relations Act and the Provisions of the Code had observed that a combined effect of the relevant provisions (Section 118 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Provisions of Code) is that ordinarily a fact has to be proved by oral evidence, but the Courts, subject to the conditions laid down in Order XIX, may ask a particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavits. Industrial Courts may conveniently follow the said procedure. ( 17 ) IN a decision in Makhan Lal v. Audh Behari, AIR 1959 All. 586 , it was held that where the depositions of the witnesses in proceedings under the workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 were not recorded by the Commissioner but by his reader, but the Commissioner had in fact attached a note at the end of each deposition that it had been recorded at his dictation owing to his inability to do so, if the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were applicable they had thus been fulfilled. In a decision in Ethiraj v K. G. Chetty, air 1972 Madras 219, while dealing with the non-compliance of Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code, it was held that if the provisions of the rule are not complied with while recording the evidence in a case, the decision in the case is liable to be set aside. ( 18 ) IN a decision in Sivasankara v. Ponnuswami, AIR 1973 Mad. 450 , case while dealing with the provisions of Order 18 Rules 5 and 6 of the Code and Order 26 Rule 17 of the Code, it was held as under: order XXVI, Rule 17 does not generally attract the entire provisions of Order XVIII relating to examination of witnesses to the proceedings before a Commissioner. 450 , case while dealing with the provisions of Order 18 Rules 5 and 6 of the Code and Order 26 Rule 17 of the Code, it was held as under: order XXVI, Rule 17 does not generally attract the entire provisions of Order XVIII relating to examination of witnesses to the proceedings before a Commissioner. It only makes the provisions applicable to the person required to give evidence and for purposes of the rule the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court. The Commissioner has not been made a Judge for the purposes of examining the witnesses and the duties of the judge under Rules 5 and 6 of Order 18 are not attracted under Order 26 Rule 17. Hence, not reading over the deposition to the witness and interpreting the same in the language of the witness and signing it by the commissioner recording the evidence does not vitiate the evidence recorded and the court can rely on such evidence. ( 19 ) IN a decision in Gian Chand v. Tirath Ram, AIR 1973 Pandh 210, it was held that the procedure of recording evidence orally may be dispensed with if the parties agree to a decision on affidavit or when, in the absence of such an agreement, the Court follows the procedure under order 19 of the Code. ( 20 ) IN a decision in Om Prakash v kamal Kishore, AIR 1982 Rajasthan 317, it was held as under: where the statement of the plaintiff was being recorded by the clerk while the Presiding Officer was busy otherwise, the proceedings would be said to have been conducted by the Court in a highly improper manner. The presence of the Presiding Officer, while the statement of a witness is being recorded in a Court of law, does not mean merely his physical presence in the Court room but the Presiding Officer must be attentive to the proceedings in the case and to the deposition of the witness and it is not permissible that he might be doing some other work while the statement of the witness was being recorded by the clerk of the Court without the intervention of the Presiding Officer. ( 21 ) A Special Bench of Karnataka High court in a decision in J. V. Nazareth v. Mrs. Philomina Marie, (SB), AIR 1985 Karn. ( 21 ) A Special Bench of Karnataka High court in a decision in J. V. Nazareth v. Mrs. Philomina Marie, (SB), AIR 1985 Karn. 135, while dealing with a case of dissolution of marriage on the ground of serious charge of adultery, based solely on husband s affidavit without examining him in Court, it was held as under: a reading of Section 51 makes it amply clear that where the attendance of the witness could be had, he had to be examined before Court. The proviso came in only as an exception. On the facts of the present case, the witness was before Court. There was no difficulty at all in securing him. That being so, it was incumbent on the Trial Court to examine him orally before the Court, especially so when section 14 of the Act clearly stated that the court should be satisfied on the evidence that the case of the petitioner had been proved, and the term evidence had been defined in the evidence Act, and the manner of recording of evidence had been stated in Rule 5 of order 18 of the Civil Procedure Code. In a case like dissolution of marriage on a grave charge like adultery, it was expedient and necessary in the interest of justice, that the court should record the evidence as contemplated under Rule 5 of Order 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, and should not render its judgments merely on the basis of proof by affidavit. The decree for dissolution based solely on the husband s affidavit without more was clearly illegal and improper, and hence, could not be confirmed under section 17 of the Divorce Act. 2003 (6) FR-F-55 ( 22 ) THESE are all the decisions delivered by different Courts prior to the Amending acts of the Code. While deciding the present question, the intent and object of introducing the Amendments to the Code also may have to be kept in mind. By the language employed under Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, it is clear that the proceedings before the Rent controller are of summary nature. The reception of chief examination in the form of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the code cannot be said to be in any way inconsistent with Rule 8 (2) of the Rules referred to supra. The reception of chief examination in the form of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the code cannot be said to be in any way inconsistent with Rule 8 (2) of the Rules referred to supra. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Rent Controller had acted with any material illegality or irregularity in receiving the chief examination in the form of an affidavit especially in the light of the old age of the concerned party, viewed from any angle and especially in view of the fact that clear safeguards have been specified under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code itself and also in view of the fact that Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code and Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code may have to be harmoniously construed with the other provisions of Order 18, I do not see any illegality or legal-infirmity warranting interference at the hands of this Court. ( 23 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Civil revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.