1. ' This 2nd appeal calls into question the order of Additional District Judge, Hyderabad dated 10-4- 1979 and the order of Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 18-3-1978.
2. ' That the controversy in this case is pretty old and there have been lots of proceedings between the parties. The relevant facts are that on 9-12-1971 the application for ejectment filed by the respondent against the appellant was dismissed by Rent Controller on the issue that there was no relationship between landlord and tenant. But in appeal decided by Additional District Judge III on 13-1-1973 it was held that there was a relationship between landlord and tenant. The case was, therefore, sent to the Rent Controller and he directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent, but since the appellant did not deposit the rent, therefore, his defence was struck off on 4-4-1973. Meanwhile, I may also mention that the appellant had filed a 2nd Appeal against the order of Additional District Judge dated 13-1-1973 and the same was eventually dismissed on 11- 4-1977 by the High Court as being time-barred. Going back to 1973, the appellant preferred an appeal against the order of Rent Controller dated 4-4-1973 striking off the defence of the appellant on account of default. The appellate Court had granted the appellant stay in respect of ejectment in pursuance of that order. However, the appellant did not pursue that appeal against the striking off of his defence and withdrew the same on 15-4-1974, and consequently it was dismissed as withdrawn. There is no allegation of any fraud in this respect.
3. ' The statement in this respect was made by Mr. Ghandi who was counsel for the appellant in the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad on 15-4-1974. Therefore, the controversy in respect of that issue came to an end on 15-4-1974 and since even the appeal of the appellant against the order of the Additional District Judge, who had held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, had also been dismissed by the High Court on 11-4-1977, therefore, there was nothing left in that matter for consideration of the Rent Controller.
4. ' The appellant, however, filed an application before the Rent Controller for further proceedings in the matter as late as 12-5-1977 but the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the same on 18-3-1978 and an appeal against the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 10-4-1979.
5. Appellant had sought to reopen the whole controversy.
6. ' I do not find anything wrong with order of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad and I am of the view that the application made by the appellant before Rent Controller in 1977 for further proceedings was completely uncalled for and unjustified. The Rent Controller was functus officio in the matter and he could not reopen the proceedings in 1977 which had attained finality by the order of 2nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad on 15.4-1974 and in any case by the order of the High Court dated 11-4-1977 in 2nd Appeal No, 197/73.
7. ' It may be relevant to point out that the appellant had filed petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court in 2nd Appeal No, 197/73 but that petition for special leave was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25th September, 1978. The concluding portion of the order of the Supreme Court is reproduced below :- "The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. In or opinion, the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by time. Besides, the petitioner has failed to deposit the rent as directed by the Rent Controller, and his defence has been struck off. He is not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed."
8. In view of the fact that the controversy has been finally concluded by' the Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the appellant had withdrawn his appeal as far back as 1974 against the order of striking off his defence, I failed to understand as to how the appellant could be justified in reopening the whole controversy ab initio in 1977 and this appeal is, therefore, found to be without any merit and is hereby dismissed. Mr. Nazim G. Jiwa makes a request for 4 months' time to vacate the premises. I will grant him that much time but with a condition that in case the premises are not vacated by the appellant within 4 months from today then a direct writ of possession will be issued by the Rent Controller against the appellant.