(1.) THE short point involved in this petition is whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order passed by ejectment.
(2.) THE contention of Mr. N.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 no appeal is maintainable against such an order and that only a revision could be filed in this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon judgments of this Court in Lakhi Ram v. Sagar Chand and another, 1963 Punjab Law Reporter 691; Rattan singh v. Harblas, (1970 R.C.R. 688) 1970 Punjab Law Reporter 926; Vasdev v. Ram Lila Sabha Karnal, 1975 Rent Control Reporter 92; Mohan Lal v. Firm Udhmi Ram Tara Chand and another, 1977(1) Rent Law Reporter 475; and Amar Chand v. Bhim Sain, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 21. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent, that an appeal is maintainable under the aforesaid Act; that all the judgments referred to above are not applicable to the provisions of the Haryana Act as the same have been rendered under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949; that earlier in view of the notification, which reads as under :-
(3.) ANYHOW , without dilating any further on this aspect of the matter and in view of the judgments which have been cited before me, it has become necessary to get the matter decided authoritatively by a larger Bench. Accordingly, I direct the Officer that the papers of this case be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the case. The Office is further directed to obtain orders for an early hearing of this case. April 15, 1980. Sd/- Prem Chand Jain, Judge. , 1983 Prem Chand Jain, J. (Oral) - The short point involved in this petitions is, whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order passed for ejectment.