ORDER : Heard Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against an Order dated 06.12.2021 in I.A.No.74 of 2020 in R.C.C.No.34 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The petitioner herein, who is a tenant filed the above referred R.C.C, seeking an order granting permission to deposit the rents in respect of the petition schedule property at the rate of Rs.2,900/- per month w.e.f., 01.08.2018 to till date and to deposit the future rents to the credit of the proceedings before the Court under Section 8(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”). In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the above mentioned miscellaneous application i.e., I.A.No.74 of 2020, inter alia, seeking to struck off the defence of the 1st respondent on the premise that there is no authority or authorization to represent the respondent-society and in the absence of any proof of authority of the Secretary to represent the society, as duly elected and authenticated by the Registrar of Societies, the respondents are not entitled to file counter representing the 1st respondent and that consequently the defence put up by the respondents is non-est and liable to be rejected. 4. The respondents filed counter to the said application and contested the matter by taking a plea, inter alia, that the evidence regarding the authority of the Secretary will be filed at the time of the Trial that the petition in question is premature and liable to be dismissed. 5. The Learned Rent Controller after considering the contentions advanced by the both the parties dismissed the application, inter alia, opining that there is no provision in the Rent Control Act for the tenant, to seek striking of defence when he filed petition under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act admitting the ownership of the respondents and further that such right is available only to the landlord and that too, when he filed a petition under Section 10(2) of the Rent Control Act on the ground of willful default and when the tenant failed to pay the rents as ordered by the Court under Section 11(4) of the Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the Learned Rent Controller failed to consider the case of the petitioner in a proper perspective and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with the Court. He submits that unless the respondents establish their authority to depose on behalf of the 1st respondent, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, they cannot be permitted to adduce any evidence by deposing on behalf of the association. The learned counsel contends that the material on record would go to show that the registration of the society was not renewed after 1968. He further contends that where no adequate provision is made in the Act or Rules, the provisions of C.P.C are applicable and therefore the present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and seeks to set aside the order under challenge. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the order under challenge, contends that the same contains cogent reasons and warrants no interference by this Court. The learned counsel specifically contends that in fact, no Revision lies against an interlocutory order passed in the proceedings under the Rent Control Act either under Section 115 of CPC or under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contentions advanced, the learned counsel places reliance on the decisions in Md. Kutubiddin and others vs. Bhaikar Raja Mitraji Anand Kumar and others, 2000 (1) ALT 83 and B. Chinnva Raju vs. B.V. Rama Rao, 2001 (6) ALT 93 . 8. In Md. Kutubiddin’s case, a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad was dealing with a batch of Civil Revision Petitions filed against the orders allowing the amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC R/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, at the instance of the landlord. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents/landlords with regard to maintainability of the Revision Petitions on the premise that the same would not lie against an order of amendment, which is only an interlocutory order and it does not fall under the purview of Section 22 of the Act. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents/landlords with regard to maintainability of the Revision Petitions on the premise that the same would not lie against an order of amendment, which is only an interlocutory order and it does not fall under the purview of Section 22 of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the revision petitioners/tenants, inter alia, that it is an elementary principle that every order passed by any forum or authority is to be subjected to a second test either by way of an appeal or revision and the order of amendment cannot be an exception. It is also contended that a revision lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if not under Section 115 of CPC. The learned Judge formulated the point for consideration, inter alia, as to “Whether an order allowing the amendment of pleadings by an appellate authority under the Act is revisable by the High Court under Section 22 of the Act or under Section 115 of CPC?” Answering the said point against the revision petitioners, the learned Judge at Para 13 opined as follows:- “It is well settled that the Rent Control Act is a special enactment, by which the statutory protection is granted to the tenant and at the same time the landlord is provided with a speedier remedy. Although Code of Civil Procedure is held to be applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings, it is hedged by certain limitations viz., “where no adequate provision is made in the Act or in the Rules and that the provision sought to be applied are not inconsistent with any express provisions of the Act or with the scheme and purpose of the enactment’. That is the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Hari Kishan Singh v. U. Narayana, 1969 (2) APLJ 290 and the said view has been approved by a Full Bench of 5 Judges in P.N. Rao vs. K. Radhakrishnama Charyulu, AIR 1978 SC 319.” 9. Further, the learned Judge after referring to Section 22 of the Act held that an order under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC is outside the scope of Section 22 of the Act. Further, the learned Judge after referring to Section 22 of the Act held that an order under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC is outside the scope of Section 22 of the Act. It is profitable to extract the relevant portion of the decision for better understanding, which reads thus : “Revision: (1) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved parry, call for an examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the Controller in execution under Section 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under Section 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or 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 proceedings, before the High court under sub-section (1) shall be in its discretion. A plain reading of the above provision shows that only two orders are contemplated therein. As rightly pointed out by Sri P.R. Prasad, an order passed or proceeding taken under the Act by the Controller in execution under Section 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under Section 20 are those two orders. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was not passed under the Act, but it was passed under Order VI, Rule 7 CPC. It is evident to the naked eye that an order under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC is outside the scope of Section 22 of the Act………” 10. The learned Judge also rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners with regard to maintainability of the Revision Petition either under Section 115 of CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, opining as follows:- “……..On a careful consideration of the scheme and purpose of the Act and since it is authoritatively held that CPC has limited application, I do not agree. When there is a specific provision for revision under the Act, there is no question of invoking Section 115 CPC. It is not necessary that every order passed by any Forum has to be subjected to a second test either by way of appeal or revision. In fact Section 115 CPC itself is hedged with limitations by a proviso to sub-section (1) which excludes umpteen types of orders passed by the lower Courts. It is not necessary that every order passed by any Forum has to be subjected to a second test either by way of appeal or revision. In fact Section 115 CPC itself is hedged with limitations by a proviso to sub-section (1) which excludes umpteen types of orders passed by the lower Courts. In such cases neither there is revision nor appeal. Hence, I hold that Section 115 CPC is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act.” The Learned Judge also rejected the plea regarding Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relying on the decision in N.S. Reddy vs. T.V. Reddy, 1997 (2) ALT 534 wherein it was held that a Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC is separate and distinct and it cannot be converted into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. B. Chinnava Raju is also a case arising out of the Rent Control proceedings. The Revision Petitioner therein is aggrieved by an order rejecting the application seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. Dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, the learned Judge at Para 6 held as follows:- “6. 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.” The learned Judge accordingly rejected the application seeking permission to convert the Revision into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. The above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, applies in all fours to the case on hand. In view of the above settled legal position, the various contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no consideration. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. The above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, applies in all fours to the case on hand. In view of the above settled legal position, the various contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no consideration. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. As the R.C.C is of the year 2018, the Learned Rent Controller shall make endeavour to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three (3) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed.