PUSHPA RANI Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urba Rent Control Act, 1987 (here -in -after referred to as the 1987 Act) has been filed by the landlord against the order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by Parkash Chand applicant for being impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord against Gian Chand tenant, was allowed and applicant Parkash Chand was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord and the landlord was directed to suitably amend the petition. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition, are that Smt. Pushpa Rani (landlord) field a petition under Section 14 of the 1987 Act against Gian Chand tenant, seeking his ejectment from the demised permises various grounds. The petition was contested by Gian Chand tenant by filing a reply. Subsequently, Gian Chand tenant amended the reply with the permission of the Court The landlord filed rejoinder to the reply by the tenant. The case was at the stage of the evidence of the respondent -tenant, namely. Gian Chand, on the additional issues which were framed after the amendment of the reply, when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by Parkash Chand applicant, for being impleaded as a respondent in the aforesaid ejectment petitions filed by the landlord. The said application was contested by the landlord. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the learned Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 31.7.2004, allowed and said application of Parkash Chand applicant and ordered that he be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition filed by the landlord and the landlord was directed to suitably amend the ejectment petition. Aggrieved against this order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed the present revision petition in this Court under Section 24(5) of the 1987 Act.

(2.) Notice of the present petition was issued to the respondents and the records were also requisitioned. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, namely, Parkash Chand (added respondent in the ejectment petition), at the outset, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present revision petition in this Court. It was submitted that under Section 24 of the 1987 Act any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller could file an appeal to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction, within 15 days from the date of the order. It was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 24(1) (b) of the 1987 Act, the impugned order dated 31.7 2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller was appealable before the appellate authority and as such the present revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 24(5) of the 1987 Act was not maintainable in this Court. Reliance in the regard was placed on the law laid down by this Court in the case Som Nath v. Sewa Ram, 1985 Shimla Law Cases 167 and the case Smt. Sudarshna Devi Sood Vs. Mis Super Sanitation and others, bearing Cr. No. 320 of 2000, decided on 31.8.2001.