1 APHC010343712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1861/2026 Between: 1. VADLAMUDI NAGA LAKSHMI, W/O. GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 29-21- 28,GOPARAJU RAMACHANDRA RAO STREET, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA-2. ...PETITIONER AND 1. G RAMAN RAO, S/o. G.V Subba Rao, Aged about 61 years, R/o. Plot No.91,P TColony, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad- 500015. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DR D VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 Date of reserved for orders : ----------- Date of pronouncement : 09-07-2026 Date of uploading : 21-07-2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1861 OF 2026 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Praveen Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff/respondent filed O.S.No.54 of 2023 seeking eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property as also for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The defendant filed I.A.No.1398 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Residential and Non-Residential Premises Tenancy Act, 2017(in short „the Act 10 of 2018’). 3. I.A. has been rejected by order dated 15.05.2026 by the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. 3 4. Challenging the same, the defendant in the suit filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil suit is barred in view of Section 40 of the Act No.10 of 2018. 6. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application, holding that the civil Court will have jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in Akella surya Kumari v. Nidavolu Thammiraju (2025 SCC OnLine AP 1930). 7. In the said case, it was held that the forum contemplated under Act 10 of 2018 had not been constituted by the Government. Consequently, a litigant cannot be left without a forum, as that would render the litigant remediless. It was also provided that the existing arrangement must continue and in view thereof merely because Sections 32 and 40 of the Act 10 of 2018 the remedy being availed by the plaintiff before the learned court would not be barred. 8. On consideration of the aforesaid judgment, this Court does not find any illegality, in the order impugned. 9. It is not disputed that the forum under the said Act 10 of 2018 has not been constituted by the State. 4 10. The learned Trial Court recorded that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C is to be considered on the averments made in the plaint and not on the basis of the plea taken in the written statement. It further recorded that from the plain reading of the plaint averments, it could not be said that the suit was barred by any law so as to attract rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. 11. The law is also well settled that the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C is to be considered on the basis of averments made in the plaint and plaint alone. 12. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned and there is no substance in the argument advanced. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. 14. Before parting, I deem it appropriate, to refer the direction issued in Akella Surya Kumari (supra) in para 48 thereof which reads as under: “48. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to the Secretary Law to Government of Andhra 5 Pradesh and to the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action, for constitution of Rent Court and Rent Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Residential and Non-Residential Premises Tenancy Act, 2017 (Act No.10 of 2018) also considering para 35 and 36 of this judgment. 15. The direction was for necessary action for constitution of Rent Court and Tribunal under the Act No.10/2018 also considering paras 35 and 36 of the judgment in Akella Surya Kumari (supra). 16. Paras 35 and 36 of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “35. The Act, 10 of 2018 came into force on 28, March, 2018. The jurisdiction under the said Act has been conferred on the Rent Courts and the Rent Tribunal. Those should have been constituted immediately. This Court finds that In Mara Venkata Lingam (supra), para 5, it was observed and recoded as under: "5. Sri Syed Khader Mastan, counsel representing the Advocate General Office, on instructions would submit that steps are now under afoot for establishment of the Rent Courts as laid down under Section 30 of the Act and within a reasonable time the Rent Courts will be established in consultation with Hon'ble High Court." 6 The aforesaid shows that way back on 18.06.2019, the statement was made, that within a reasonable time the Rent Courts will be established. Since then, almost six years are about to elapse but the rent courts/Tribunals have not come into existence, giving rise to a situation that there are no Rent Courts/Tribunals constituted under the Act 10 of 2018. The Civil Courts jurisdiction is barred under Sections 32 and 40 of the Act 10/2018. The Act also does not provide for the mechanism to be followed till the constitution of such rents courts/rent tribunal. 36. The party having the right to take recourse, under the Act, 2018 has not been provided the Forum. The Executive by its inaction cannot take away the right conferred by the statute on the landlord seeking redressal against the tenant or on the tenant to enforce certain obligations of the landlord. It cannot be that though the party aggrieved has the remedy provided by the statute, but not the Forum to approach for redressal of grievance and seek such remedy. This Court is of the view that, therefore, under the circumstances, the Forum constituted under the Act, 1960, for redressal of the grievance of the landlord or/and tenant, which are almost of the same nature under the Act 10/2018, can very well address the grievances, till constitution of the Forum as provided under the Act No.10/2018. For the grievance under the Act No.10/2018 and its redressal, the land lord or/and tenant can approach under the existing Forum created under the Act, 1960, which still continues and shall have jurisdiction to decide the disputes under the Act No. 10/2018 as well. It is provided that the orders passed by such forum shall not be treated as without jurisdiction on that count.” 7 17. From paragraph 35, it is evident that way back on 18.06.2019 a statement was made that within a reasonable time the Rent Courts will be established. Almost six years had passed when the judgment was delivered in Akella Surya Kumari (supra) and from the date of the judgment in Akella Surya Kumari (supra) more than one year has passed and the Forum under the Act, 10 of 2018 has not been constituted by the State. 18. Let a status report be submitted by the State through Chief Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, with respect to the progress, the necessary action taken and the compliance with the direction issued in para No.48 of Akella Surya Kumari (supra). 19. The status report shall be submitted to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and on receipt thereof, the Registrar (Judicial) shall place the same on record of this petition. The revision petition shall be listed on 30.07.2026 for perusal of the status report and for passing further necessary orders, if the occasion so arises. 20. A copy of this order shall be sent to (1) the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, 8 Velagapudi, Amaravati, (2) the Secretary to Government, Law (L.A&J) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati, (3) the learned Advocate General for Government of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, (4) the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati and (5) the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date:09.07.2026. Pab/Gk Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ☑