K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlord's writ petition directed against the judgments of the learned District Judge, Saharanpur, dated November 30, 1973, and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of that place, dated August 16, 1973. The facts are as follows: - The petitioner is the owner of a big house bearing No. 912829, in which on the first floor the petitioner is residing, on the ground floor there are a number of shops and in the back row of the shops, the dis puted shop No. 8 is situated. The petitioner is the proprietor of Hin dustan Chemical Industries and is carrying on business in one of the shops of this building. This shop is, however, situate behind shop No. 8, which is in dispute in this writ petition. This shop No. 8 was previously in the tenancy of one Jaswant Rai Bhalla. A suit for ejectment was filed by the petitioner against him. This suit was com promised on May 30, 1972, and the possession was delivered to the pe titioner. On September 25, 1972, Hansraj, respondent No. 3, filed an application for allotment of this shop alleging that the same was ly ing vacant since the time of eviction of Jaswant Rai Bhalla. The ap plication was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the shop was within the municipal limits of Saharanpur and was assessed for the first time after March, 1963 and hence was not covered under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). It was also claimed that the shop was not vacant and was in his occupa tion and, therefore, Section 16 of the new Act did not apply. These pleadings of the parties gave rise to two questions before the Prescrib ed Authority. The first was about the time when the shop had been constructed, and if the said question was answered in favour of res pondent No. 3, the other question which arose for decision before the Prescribed Authority was whether the same was vacant for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not discuss the evidence of the parties on the question of vacancy and merely confining himself to the determination of the time of its construction found that the same having been let out in October, 1962 should be deemed to have been constructed in 1962. In the alternative, the Rent Control and Eviction Office, 1 also held that as the property was assessed on March 31, 1963, the shop must be deemed to have been covered by the provi sions of the new Act. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed on November 30, 1973 on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Aggriev ed the petitioner has filed this wait petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Dis trict Judge committed an error in holding that the appeal against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not lie before him He reliled upon Section 18 of the new Act in support of his contention and urged that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer being one under Section 16 of the new Act could be appealed against under Section 18 of the said Act before the District Judge. It may be noted that by the order dated August 16, 1973, the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer only disposed of the preliminary issue and found that the shop came within the purview of the Act. He further directed that the vacancy be notified and applications for allotment be invited. It is, therefore, clean that he had not allotted the premises by the said order. Section 16 of the new Act contemplates several orders in its various sub-sections which can be passed against or in favour of one or the other party. Under sub-section (1) of Section 18, an order passed under Section 16 has been made appealable. Sub section (1) of Section 18 runs as under: - "Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 16 or Section 19 may, within fifteen days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal." A reading of Section 18(1), therefore, shows that an order pass ed under Section 16 alone has been made appealable. Such an order, in my opinion, is that which is contemplated by Section 16. It can not be that all sundry, miscellaneous or interlocutory orders made from time to time by the Prescribed Authority during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 16 of the new Act have been made appealable under Section 18 of the said Act. Reverting to Section 16, the following are the orders which are contemplated by Section 16, (i) an order of allotment under Section 16(1) (a); (ii) an order of release under Section 16(1) (b); (iii) an order of eviction under Section 16 (4); (iv) an order awarding special costs, under Section 16 (5); and (v) an order directing the allottee to pay the landlord an ad vance, under Section 16(9).
(3.) THE Legislature while using the word 'order' in Section 18 should be presumed to have intended to use the same with reference to these orders and not others. There is an obvious rationable behind the same as making of all orders appealable passed during the progress of a case would hamper the proceedings inordinately and defeat the very object of the Act. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel vacancy is a pre-requisite for making an order of allotment and is of for the petitioner, that a decision relating to the declaration of a great importance for the said purpose. But, I do not agree with his submission that if this order is held not to be appealable under Sec tion 18 of the new Act, the same is likely to prejudice the right of the person affected by the same to the extent that its correctness cannot be subsequently challenged. An order determining the vacancy or (refusing to do so has to be followed by another order, granting or re jecting the application for allotment. Such an order of allotment or refusal to do so is indisputably appealable under Section 13 of the new Act. In the appeal preferred against the order of allotment or refusal to do so, the finding regarding vacancy can also be challeng ed. When an order contemplated by Section 16 is appealed from any error, defect or irregularity in any other interlocutory or miscellane ous order affecting the decision of the case, the same may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. It is, fore, not correct that if an order determining the vacancy is not ap pealable under Section 18 it would cause any prejudice to the interest of the person affected by the same. The proposition that the right of, appeal inhers in no one does not admit of any doubt. Therefore, an appeal for its maintainability must have a clear authority of law. If there is no provision of law providing for the same, the court cannot indirectly find it in favour of a person. It may also be observed that Section 18 does not only apply to positive orders made undeir1 Section 16 of the Act, but also takes within its ambit a negative order, as re fusal to allot the premises as well. Therefore, in my opinion, the ap peal filed by the petitioner against the order declaring vacancy and inviting applications for allotment was not appealable before the learned District Judge under Section 18 of the new Act.;