R.K.SOOD Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties further today I am of opinion that the objection taken by Shri D. D. Sood on behalf of the respondent regarding the maintainability of the present revision is sound.

(2.) Section 16 (8) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter, "the Act") provides that: "No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section : Provided that the High Court may, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit." While section 24 (1) (b) of the Act says that: "24 (1) (b). Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller, except the orders for the recovery of possession made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 16, may, within fifteen days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction........."

(3.) It is clear from these two provisions that except in a case where an order for recovery of possession of any premises has been made by the Controller in exercise of powers under section 16, where the order can only be assailed in a revision before this Court, all other orders, including an order refusing the recovery of possession of any premises, of the Controller under section 16, can be assailed in appeal. The present application in revision is held as not maintainable.