B.N.GUPTA Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances giving rise to the reference and placing the case before us may be stated.

(2.) The Petitioner, claiming himself to be a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of the word as defined in Section 2(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), sought the eviction of Respondent-tenant under summary procedure provided in Section 15(2) of the Act. The petition was dismissed by Rent Controller (IV), Shimla. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a revision under Section 16(8) of the Act to this Court. Notice, pending admission, was issued. The Respondent, after having put in appearance raised a preliminary, objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition in view of the two judgments of this Court in R.K. Sood v. Roshan Lal, 1992 1 ShimLC 343and Shiv Ram v. M.M. Bhatacharji (Civil Revision 213/88, decided on 25th April, 1989).

(3.) In R.K. Good's case (supra), the learned single Judge of this Court Mr. Justice V.K. Mehrotra, Acting Chief Justice, as he then was), construed Section 16(8) and Section 24(1)(b) of the Act and held that except in a case where an order of recovery of possession of any premises has been made by the Controller, in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Act, where the order can only be assailed by way of a revision under Section 16(8) before this Court, all other orders, including an order refusing the prayer for recovery of possession of any premises, of the Controller, under Section 16 of the Act can be assailed only by way of an appeal Consequently, the revision in that case preferred by a landlord against the order of Rent Controller dismissing his petition for recovery of possession which he had claimed as a specified landlord was permitted to be returned to enable the landlord to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority.