RAJA RAM SINGH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Raja Ram Singh, tenant with a view to impugn the order of the District Judge, Ambala, dated November 19, 1973, by which order of the District Judge acting as Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban pent Rent Restriction Act, 1949, retuned the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 15(2) of the Act for presentation to the proper forum for the reason that the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Act 11 of 1973) had come into force and by means of a notification, dated September 7 1973, the District Judges in the State of Haryana has ceased to be Appellate Authorities in respect of rent cases.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the District judge on the ground that vide sub-section (2) of section 1 of Haryana Act 11 of 1973 the provisions of the said Act were expressly made not applicable to the Cantonment areas where the property in dispute is admittedly situated. This argument of the learned counsel has, however, been nullified on account of a later amendment of Haryana Act 11 of 1973 by means of a notification dated May 1, 1974 (No. S. R. O. 171) issued under section 3 of the Cantonment Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (Act 46 of 1957). As per this notification, sub-section (2) of section 1 of Haryana Act I1 of 1973 was modified in so far as the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to the Cantonment areas state. In the crate of Haryana. This amendment was made with effect from April 25, 1973, i.e., a date much earlier to the one on which the appeal was returned by the District Judge, Ambala. The result is that the order of the learned District Judge cannot be challenged on this ground now.

(3.) It is pointed out that Haryana Act 11 of 1973 was amended by means of subsequent Haryana Act No. 4 of 1974. By virtue of this amending Act, section 20-A has been added to the parent Act, under which an appeal from the order of a Subordinate Judge performing the functions of the Controller, lies to the District Judge conferred with the powers of the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that in view of this legislative change, the appeal will again have to be filed before the District Judge. This circumstance does not, however, make the order of the District Judge passed on November 19, 1973 as illegal as the amending Act was enacted much later. It will be for the petitioner to choose the correct forum for reeling the appeal, If so advised.