SMT. AMAR KAUR Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-7-1976 passed by the Special Collector exercising the power of the Rent Controller, Karnal. Whereby she set aside the ex parte order of ejectment dated 2-5-1973 passed against Nand Lal, respondent-tenant, in pursuance whereof the latter was ordered to be evicted. The Rent Controller found as a fact that the respondent-tenant had not been duly served and that there being no legal service the ex parte decree passed against him unsustainable. The petitioner landlord challenged the said order before the Financial Commissioner exercising the powers of the revisional authority. During the pendency of the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, was amended by Act No. 16 of 1978, with the result that the powers under the Act were again conferred upon the judicial officers and the revisional powers again vested in the High Court and the revision petition thus stood transferred to this Court and that is how it is before me.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the ex parte order in question had been passed by a judicial authority, that is, a Subordinate Judge, the special Collector, on whom the powers of the Rent Controller had been conferred by the Haryana Act of 1973, being an executive officer, was not competent in law to set aside the order passed by a judicial officer.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has no precedent to support his submission and, in the circumstances, there could be none.