- (1.) WE have heard Shri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.B. Singhal, Asstt. Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri S.K. Rai appears for the respondents.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri R.B. Singhal, Asstt. Solicitor General of India that this special appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court as the Prescribed Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the appellate authority namely the Addl. District Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in the Act is under the superintendence of the Court.
(3.) SHRI K.K. Arora appearing for the appellant would submit that the orders under challenge before the learned Single Judge arose out of the proceedings, which were drawn under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the P.P. Act, 1971), which is an enactment referable to Entry -3 and 32 of the List -1 -Union List of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and thus even if learned Single Judge was hearing the matter arising out of an appeal under PP Act, 1971, a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is maintainable. Shri R.B. Singhal has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 1 ESC 273. We have gone through this judgment and find that in the said case the appeal was filed under a Control Order made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which is enacted with reference to legislative powers under Entry 33 of the List -III (Concurrent List) of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.;