LACHHMAN DASS Vs. SMT. SHEILLA EMILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition under Sec. 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against an order of the Controller, Simla, declining to quash the proceedings before him.

(2.) The landlord, who is the Respondent in the present case, applied under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the tenant, the Petitioner before me. The application was filed before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Simla, as Controller under that Act. The tenant raised an objection that the Senior Subordinate Judge had not been validly appointed as Controller and therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The objection has been rejected by the Controller by an order dated September 18, 1973. The order is impugned by the present revision petition.

(3.) Two points have been raised by the tenant before me. The first is that there is no valid notification appointing a Controller, and the second is that assuming that the notification dated April 14, 1947, can be said to validly appoint a Controller the appointment made thereby is from Subordinate Judges of the first class and not from Senior Subordinate Judges.