ZAINA BIBI Vs. JAMAL BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller on 28 -6 -65, overruling an objection raised by the non -applicant petitioner about the minority of Ghulam Mohd, respondent 2 in the original application.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that this order is not revisable. He has invited my atten to S. 21 of the House & Shops Rent Control Act. This section provides an appeal from a final order of the Rent Controller to the District Judge in whose jurisdiction the house or shop in respect of which the order is made is situate. Sub -section () of this section lays down the procedure for filing the appeal and powers and procedure of the court and it says that the powers and procedure of hearing the appeal shall be the same as in appeals from orders under the Civil P. C. Sub -section (4) further lays down that from an order made in such appeal no further appeal shall lie. but the High Court may revise the order on the ground of error of law or on the ground of material failure of justice. The same sub -section preserves the powers of the District Judge or the High Court as are given to courts under Ss 151 and 152., Civil P. C. It also gives a power of review to these courts.

(3.) THE matter is a very simple one. From a plain reading of S. 21 no remedy is provided to an aggrieved party unless the order is a final order. An interlocutory order cannot be agitated either in appeal or by revision under this section. After the Rent Controller passes a final order, it is only against such final order that an appeal is competent before a District Judge. The High Court is empowered to entertain a revision petition against the order of the District Judge only in such appeals, which means that the basic order of the Rent Controller must be a final order and not an interlocutory order When the powers of the High Court to act as a court of revision have been clearly defined in this section, S. 115 of the Civil P. C. is automatically ruled out and no person can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under the said section. The matter is so simple that it does not require any elaborate discussion I am fortified in my view by an authority 1943 Cal. 247 which is based on the West Bengal House Rent Control Order of 1942. Paragraph 12 of that order is similar in substance to S. 21 of our Act. Sub -paras (1) and (2) of that para read as under : -