DHARAM PAL Vs. SHRI BAGICHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated December 27, 1973, passed by Shri Sunil Ahuja, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra He allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated November 12, 1973, passed by the Rent Controller, Karnal, whereby the latter had ordered the respondent to place the premises in dispute in possession of the petitioner.

(2.) THE short point argued is that the original matter was decided by a Subordinate Judge exercising the powers of the Rent Controller and appeal against has order lay before the District Judge exercising the powers of an Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Mr. G.C. Mittal, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to section 24 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 whereinafter called the Act.) It is a repeal clause containing the following proviso : - -

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to section 15 of the Act which entitles the State Government to confer the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on any officer of the State Government. It is submitted that the State Government had conferred the powers of the Appellate Authority on the Deputy Commissioner, who heard and decided the appeal. Consequently, it should be laid down that Shri Sunil Ahuja, I.A.S., had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. I find no merit in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the respondent Section 15 is only an enabling provision. Under the scheme of the statute, cases under the Act were to be decided by the Executive Officers who were not under the control of the High Court. In this situation, it had to be provided that the State Government would be competent to invest the Executive Officers with the powers of a Rent Controller for decision of cases which arise after the Act came into force. This provision cannot be pressed into service for ousting the jurisdiction of the authorities who were competent to decide the cases and appeals under the old law, because that jurisdiction has been expressly saved by section 24 of the Act, which is in pari materia of section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Furthermore, section 15 of the Act is a general provision and section 24 is a special provision covering some special types of cases. It is settled principal of interpretation of law that a special provision in a statute over rides a general provision.