NOVEX INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 115of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), has been filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated June 14, 1977, dismissing the application of the petitioner for grant of ad interim order staying his dispossession from the premises in dispute.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of the property in dispute. The respondent filed an application for his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller passed ex parte order of ejectment on June 2, 1977, as the petitioner had not put in appearance in spite of service. The tenant, thereafter, moved an application on June 13, 1977 for setting aside the ex parte order. He also moved another application for an ad interim order staying his dispossession till the disposal of his other application. This application was rejected by the Rent Controller on the ground that no prima fcie case had been made out.

(3.) The impugned order is a discretionary order. As no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the Rent Controller has been pointed out the said order would not be open to challenge under Section 115 of the Code. The only argument raised by the learned counsel was that once the application for setting aside the ex parte order had been entertained and was still pending disposal, the operation of ex parte order of his eviction should have been stayed. This would, however, be no ground for interference with the impugned order in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.