SAT PAL Vs. SUNAINA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has been placed before me on account of divergence of opinion between My Lord the Chief Justice and Surjit Singh, J. with respect to the interpretation to be put upon Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub section (1) of Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) I have had the privilege of going through both the aforesaid opinions and have also heard the learned Counsel assisting the Court in detail. Since only a short question of law has been referred to me, it is not necessary to give the factual matrix of the case.

(3.) SURJIT Singh, J. in his order has clearly stated that he disagrees with the order of the Chief Justice only with regard to the view taken by the Chief Justice that unless the State Government specifies in the Notification, the orders which are appealable, every order passed by the Rent Controller shall be appealable in view of the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub section (1) of Section 24 of the Act. Whereas the Chief Justice has held that every order passed by the Rent Controller is appealable, Surjit Singh, J. is of the view that the phrase "an order appearing in Section 24 (1)(b)" encompasses only those orders that are passed by the Rent Controller under the Act, i.e. the orders passed for eviction, fixation of fair rent, revision of fair rent, deposit of rent, restoration of amenities, restitution of premises to the tenant. He has held that only the final orders are appealable and the interlocutory orders passed by the Rent Controller are not appealable.