CHANDER MOHAN Vs. BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order for ex parte proceedings against the tenant passed by the Rent Controller was set aside by him vide order dated Oct. 27,1983. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord Bihari Lal Gupta, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. An objection was raised on behalf of the tenant that the appeal against the said order of the Rent Controller was not maintainable and that the landlord could only assail the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, in the High Court in revision. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Bikramjit Singh Paul v. Jaswant Singh, (1977) 2 Rent L.R. 363 where it was held that an order refusing to set aside ex parte decree entitles an aggrieved party to maintain a revision and not an appeal. Reliance was also placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Daya Chand Hardayal v. Bir Chand, AIR 1983 Punj and Har 356. However, the Appellate Authority distinguished the same on the ground that under the notification issued by the Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, vide No. 4612-LD-72/6843 dated Nov. 25, 1972, the District Judge, Chandigarh, had been invested with the powers of the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). According to the Appellate Authority S.15(1)(b) of the Act inter alia provided that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within 15 days from the date of such order, prefer, in writing, an appeal to the Appellate Authority, having jurisdiction. Thus, according to it the cumulative effect of the provisions of S.15, and the notification issued by the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, dated Nov. 25, 1972, mentioned above, was that all the orders passed by the Rent Controller under the Act were appealable hence it was held that the appeal was maintainable against the impugned order. Ultimately, the appeal was accepted and the impugned order of the Rent Controller setting aside the order proceeding ex parte against the tenant was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Daya Chand Hardayal's case (supra), no appeal against the order of the Rent Controller setting aside the ex parte proceedings against the tenant was maintainable. According to the learned counsel, even under the Civil P.C., (hereinafter called the Code), such an order was not appealable under O.XLIII R.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that the abovesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court, was distinguishable as there was no notification as regards the Union Territory of Chandigarh authorising the Appellate Authority to hear appeals only against the orders passed by the Rent Controllers under Ss.4, 10, 12 and 13 of the Act, as was provided vide Punjab Government notification dated Apr. 14,1947. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in the absence of any such notification, any order passed by the Rent Controller was appealable under S.15 of the Act The learned counsel specifically pointed out that under S.15(1)(b) of the Act any person aggrieved by "an order" passed by the Rent Controller may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. Since the order dated Oct 27, 1983, setting aside the ex parte proceedings was passed by the Rent Controller under the Act the same was appealable under S.15(1)(b). According to the learned counsel in the absence of any notification of the nature as issued by the Punjab Government vide notification dated Apr. 14,1947, the Appellate Authority was competent to hear the appeals in the Union Territory of Chandigarh against any order passed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.