AMAR CHAND Vs. BHIM SAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Amar Chand tenant against the order of the Rent Controller, Rewari dated November 21, 1977.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Bhim Sain filed an application for ejectment of the tenant from the shop inter alia on the ground that he had not paid the rent, The Court proceeded ex parte against the tenant as he did not appear in spite of service. He further held that the tenant had not paid the rent. Consequently, he vide order dated February 16, 1976, ordered his ejectment The tenant filed an application for setting aside exparte order on March 19, 1976, wherein he stated that he was not served in the rent petition and that he came to know about it from one Bal Mukand, his nephew. The application was opposed by the landlord. The rent Controller came to the conclusion that he had the knowledge about the proceedings and was deliberately avoiding the service. He, consequently, dismissed the application on November 21, 1977. The tenant filed an appeal against that order in the Court of the appellate authority on December 19, 1977 and a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, who had the revisional jurisdiction, on February, 20, 1978. An objection was raised by the counsel for the landlord before the appellate authority that no appeal was maintainable against that order. The said authority found force in the contention of the learned Counsel and dismissed the same on that short ground. After filing of the revision petition, the jurisdiction to hear revision petition was taken from the Financial Commissioner and conferred on the High Court. Consequently, the revision petitions pending before the Financial Commissioner were transferred to (his Court. That Is how the matter in being heard in this Court.

(3.) MR . Sarin, learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the order of the Rent Controller has merged with the order of the appellate authority and consequently no revision petition is maintainable against the order of the Real Controller. He submits that the revision petition was maintainable against the order of the appellate authority. I regret my inability to accept the contention. The appeal was filed against the order of the Rent Controller dated November. 21, 1977. An objection was raised on behalf of the landlord that no appeal was maintainable. The appellate authority cams to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and consequently he dismissed it. If he had no Jurisdiction to hear the appeal, then the question of merger of Rent Controller order with that of the appellate authority does not arise. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the contention has no merit and is liable to be rejected.