HARBANS SINGH AZAD Vs. VINOD KUMAR, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of the order of Shri A.N. Aggarwal, District Judge, Hissar, dated October 26, 1970, passed by him in his capacity as Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , whereby he issued notice of the appeal filed by the petitioner against Rent Controller's order directing his eviction but refused to stay dispossession of the petitioner on the ground that there seemed to be no prima facie case for issue of an ex parte stay order. He issued notice of the application for stay for November 10, 1970. The respondent who is a minor had filed the petition for eviction through his father Badri Parshad as his next friend. In the appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Judge also the respondent is being proceeded against through the same next friend. Notice of this revision petition was, therefore, issued to the respondent through his father as his next friend, under my orders dated November 4, 1970, returnable for November 16, 1970. The records were not called for but the execution of the order for eviction was stayed till November 16, 1970, unless the petitioner's appeal was disposed of before that day. The object of giving a short date was that the appeal itself which was fixed for hearing before the District Judge on November 10, 1970, might be disposed of before the next date in the revision petition to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. On November 16, 1970, no body appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice of the revision petition on the next friend of the respondent. The ex-parte stay order was, therefore, confirmed by me on that day for the period during which the revision petition might remain pending here.

(2.) At the hearing of the revision petition again no one has appeared for the respondent. Mr. Sawhney who appears for the petitioners states that on account of an enquiry which is being made by the District Judge into the question of the file of the relevant case having been or not having been before the Rent Controller at the time of deciding the case, the petitioner's appeal had not been disposed of till yesterday which was the last date of hearing therein.

(3.) Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , states that on an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 15 being preferred, the Appellate Authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal. Discretion is, therefore, vested in the Appellate Authority to grant or not to grant stay. Though the powers of the High Courts under sub-section (5) of the Section 15 of the Act are not confined to the grounds enumerated in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code but are much wider, and even if no jurisdictional question is involved this Court can interfere with an order passed under the Act if it is found that the same is either not legal or not proper in the circumstances of a given case, the High Court is not normally expected to interfere in discretionary interlocutory orders of this type so long as the discretion has been exercised in accordance with sound judicial principles.