RAM LAL Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's writ petition directed against the judgments of the learned District Judge, Saharanpur, dated November 30, 1973, and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of that place, dated August 16, 1973. The facts are as follows: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Dis trict Judge committed an error in holding that the appeal against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not lie before him He reliled upon Section 18 of the new Act in support of his contention and urged that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer being one under Section 16 of the new Act could be appealed against under Section 18 of the said Act before the District Judge. It may be noted that by the order dated August 16, 1973, the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer only disposed of the preliminary issue and found that the shop came within the purview of the Act. He further directed that the vacancy be notified and applications for allotment be invited. It is, therefore, clean that he had not allotted the premises by the said order. Section 16 of the new Act contemplates several orders in its various sub-sections which can be passed against or in favour of one or the other party. Under sub-section (1) of Section 18, an order passed under Section 16 has been made appealable. Sub section (1) of Section 18 runs as under: -

(3.) THE Legislature while using the word 'order' in Section 18 should be presumed to have intended to use the same with reference to these orders and not others. There is an obvious rationable behind the same as making of all orders appealable passed during the progress of a case would hamper the proceedings inordinately and defeat the very object of the Act. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel vacancy is a pre-requisite for making an order of allotment and is of for the petitioner, that a decision relating to the declaration of a great importance for the said purpose. But, I do not agree with his submission that if this order is held not to be appealable under Sec tion 18 of the new Act, the same is likely to prejudice the right of the person affected by the same to the extent that its correctness cannot be subsequently challenged. An order determining the vacancy or (refusing to do so has to be followed by another order, granting or re jecting the application for allotment. Such an order of allotment or refusal to do so is indisputably appealable under Section 13 of the new Act. In the appeal preferred against the order of allotment or refusal to do so, the finding regarding vacancy can also be challeng ed. When an order contemplated by Section 16 is appealed from any error, defect or irregularity in any other interlocutory or miscellane ous order affecting the decision of the case, the same may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. It is, fore, not correct that if an order determining the vacancy is not ap pealable under Section 18 it would cause any prejudice to the interest of the person affected by the same. The proposition that the right of, appeal inhers in no one does not admit of any doubt. Therefore, an appeal for its maintainability must have a clear authority of law. If there is no provision of law providing for the same, the court cannot indirectly find it in favour of a person. It may also be observed that Section 18 does not only apply to positive orders made undeir1 Section 16 of the Act, but also takes within its ambit a negative order, as re fusal to allot the premises as well. Therefore, in my opinion, the ap peal filed by the petitioner against the order declaring vacancy and inviting applications for allotment was not appealable before the learned District Judge under Section 18 of the new Act.