HAYATHSAHEB Vs. RASULMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition under S.50 of the, Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, against the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Dharwar, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.2 of 1968.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction against the petitioner. That application was allowed and an order for eviction was passed. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said order under Rule 29 of the Mysore Rent Control Rules read with Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC. That application was dismissed by the Court of first instance by its order dt.18th January 1968. It is the said order that was challenged by the petitioner before the I Additional District Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal No.2 of 1968. The learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal is not maintainable

(3.) The only orders which are appealable under the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, are those specified in S.48 of the Act. The order of the Court of the first instance in this case is not an appealable order under the said provision (vide the decision in Markal v. Town Municipal Council, Harihar (1968) 1 Mys.L.J. 341., and Item No. 18 of Short Notes of Recent Decisions reported in the 13th January 1972 issue of the Mysore Law Journal). The Court below was right in taking the view that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. I do not find any ground in this case for challenging the correctness of the view taken by the learned District Judge in regard to maintainability of the appeal. The revision petition is directed only against the order passed by the District Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal No.2 of 1968 confirming the order of the Court of first instance dt.18th January 1968. As the appeal filed by the petitioner is clearly not maintainable, this revision petition has to fail and it is accordingly dismssed. No costs.