RAMANJULU NAIDU, J.

(1) THE question raised in this revision petition is of utmost importance and frequent occurrence, the question being whether an order of eviction passed by a Court of Rent Controller pursuant to an order of remand made by the appellate Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act is a nullity and incapable of execution on the ground that the appellate Court had no power to remand the petition for eviction for further enquiry. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that there is no decided case of this Court or of any other High Court on the question raised. I am therefore of the opinion that the question raised may be decided by a Division Bench of this Court. Place the papers before the Honourable the Chief Justice for posting this case before a Division Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the above order of reference dated 9-4-86 the petition came on for hearing before the Division Bench and the Court delivered the following.

(2) THIS C. R. P. arises out of rent control proceedings. The petitioner is the landlord. He filed R. C. No. 2/78 for eviction of the res pondent tenant on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on 29-8-1978. The matter was carried in appeal in r. C. A. No. 3/78, which was allowed by the appellate authority on 23-10-1979 and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller. On remand, the Rent Controller held a fresh enquiry and allowed the petition on 30-8-1980. It is said that the respondent was exparte. The order of eviction dt. 30-8-1980 has become final. The petitioner thereupon filed E. P. No. 23/80 for execution. In the E. P. , an objection was taken by the respondent-tenant on the ground that the order of eviction is a nullity and the same cannot be enforced. It was contended that the appellate authority under the Rent control Act has no power to remand, and consequently, the order of the appellate authority dated 23-10-1979 remanding the case is illegal The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller pursuant to the order of remand is equally illegal and non est in law. This contention was accepted by the Rent Controller and E. P. was dismissed on 18-2-1982. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has come now up in revision. When the matter came up before our learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu, J. the learned Judge referred it a Bench. Thus, the matter is before us.

(3) THE short question for consideration is whether the order of the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act remanding a case is a nullity

(4) SECTION 20 of the Rent Control Act is the relevant section, which deals with the powers of the authority, and it is as follows"20 Appeal. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court in the cities of hyderabad and Secunderabad and elsewhere to the Subordinate Judge, or if there are more than one Subordinate Judges, the Principal subordinate Judge having original jurisdiction over the area aforesaid. In computing the said period of thirty days, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. (2). . . . . . . . (3) The appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further enquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal. Explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) The decision of the appellate authority and subject to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of Law, except as provided in Sec. 22". Section 20 Clause 3 came up for decision before the Courts many times and it was held that the appellate authority has no power to remand a case. It was held that the appellate authority after entertaining an appeal can conduct a further enquiry if it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller and he should decide the appeal. The learned Judges held that the appeal should be kept pending on file and the appellate authority has no power to remand, as the power to remand involves setting aside of the order under appeal. [vide Brijmohanlal vs. Rajalingam 1, Mahboob Bi vs. Ahala Lachmaiah 2 Mjs. J. F. Baria and Sons vs. Mongalchand 3 Konduru ammanna Chart vs. Rahima Khatoon 4 mr. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the view expressed in these decisions is not correct. He submitted that all. the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the rent Control Proceedings and hence, Order XLI Rule 23 is also applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings. On the other hand, mr. Vasudev Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply only when there is no inconsistency between the provisions in the Special Act and the C. P. C. and when Sec. 20 (3) is a special provision providing the method and manner in which the appeal should be disposed of, O. 41 R. 23 C. P. C. has no application. However, we think it is unnecessary to go into the question. For the purpose of this revision; we proceed on the assumption that the appellate authority has no power to remand and that it should decide the appeal itself in the manner indicated in Section 20 (3) namely by conducting an enquiry it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. But the real question tor consideration is whether an order of remand is a nullity

(5) IT is not in dispute that if the order is a nullity, the validity of the same can be challenged at any stage and even in collateral proceedings vide Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan 5 Section 20 (3) provides for the method in which the appeal should be disposed of. There is an essential distinction between want of jurisdiction to entertain a cause and an irregular exercise of jurisdiction and this, in our view, is a fundamental distinction. It was repeatedly pointed out in several decisions that a Court has got the power to decide rightly as well as wrongly. If it decides wrongly, the person who is affected can only take the course prescribed by law for setting it riaht and if that course is not taken, the wrong cannot be disturbed. where the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter, the judgment unless reversed or annulled in a proper proceeding is not open to attack in any collateral action or at the time of execution In the present case the cause is eviction and the parties are the landlord and tenant. Undoubtedly the court constituted under the Rent Control Act has jurisdiction In the exercise of its jurisdiction, if the Court had committed a mistake it would only amount to an irregularity or even an illegality, but it does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. In this context, we may refer to Section 20 (4)which says that the decision of the appellate authority shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except as provided in Section 22 section 22 provides a revision to the High Court by any aggrieved party against the order passed under Section 20 and the High Court is yested with the jurisdiction to go into the legality and regularity and propriety of such orders. we are therefore of the view that the order of the appellate authority remanding the case is not a void order, but is only an order passed in irregular exercise of its power. It is not therefore, open to challenge in execution Ittyavira Mathai vs Varke Varke and Another 6 it was held that when Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties, passes a decree, it cannot be treated as a nullity and ignored in a subsequent litigation, even if the suit is one barred by time In panthala kwmemma Pokkuttys Daughter Kunheema Uma vs Puthalath Balakrishn 7 it wa held that jurisdiction does not depend upon the correctness of the decision and the power to decide carries with it the power correctness of the or wrongly and even an erroneous decision on a quest on of law operates a res judicata between the parties to it. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in these two decisions and having regard to the provisions of Section 20 (3) and (4), we are of the view that the order of remand passed by an appe late authority under the Rent Control act is not a nullity, but one passed in rregular exercise of power. Unless it is challenged by way of a revision, the same holds good between the parties No otherpoint arises for consideration. The C. R. P. is accordingly allowed the order of the Rent Controller is set aside and the E. P. is restored there shall be no order as to costs.