AMIT KUMAR SHAH Vs. PARVEZ SHARIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that, he is a tenant of the respondent who had instituted a suit for eviction, being Ejectment Suit No. 25(H) of 2022, before the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong against him, and that even before his appearance in the case, the electricity to the suit premises was disconnected. A Misc. Case was then filed by the petitioner under Sec. 6 and 7 of the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, read with Sec. 94 and 151 of the CPC, for restoration of the electricity connection, before the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong, which by order dtd. 22/2/2023, while issuing notice, also ordered that, in the interim the connection be restored pending the disposal of the said Misc. Case.

(2.) The respondent being aggrieved, then preferred an appeal against the order dtd. 22/2/2023, under Sec. 8 of the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, before the Court of the District Judge, Shillong, and the same was registered as FAO No. 1(H) of 2023. The Learned District Judge, thereafter, disposed of the appeal vide order dtd. 6/3/2023, and set aside the order dtd. 22/2/2023, however, without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner being highly aggrieved thereby, has presented this petition under Article 227 for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 6/3/2023.

(3.) Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, firstly as the appeal was not maintainable as the order dtd. 22/2/2023, was not appealable under Sec. 8, as it was an order granted under Sec. 7(1) of the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, read with Sec. 94 of the CPC. Secondly, he submits that, the order dtd. 22/2/2023, was an interim order and not a final adjudication of the matter, and the Lower Appellate Court, should have allowed the Court of the Assistant District Judge, to finally adjudicate the matter, and then entertain an appeal under Sec. 8 of the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act. He lastly submits that, what compounds the illegality is that, the impugned order was passed without any issuance of notice, or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.