SAXENA,J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated December 13, 1975 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Allahabad.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the revisionist applied for al­lotment of an accommodation belonging to the opposite party. It was allotted in his favour. On January 18, 1975 the opposite party filed an appeal against it. December 1, 1975 was fixed for hearing of the appeal. On this date when the case was called on for hearing the revisionist, who was respondent in the appeal, went to call his learn­ed counsel, who was busy in another court. He returned with his counsel after an hour and in the meantime the learned Second Addi­tional District Judge took some additional evidence and allowed the appeal. The revisionist moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decision which was rejected by the Second Additional Dis­trict Judge on the ground that the learned counsel for the applicant appears to have remained absent intentionally and no satisfactory ground for restoration was made out. He also observed that even if he had heard the appeal on merits, he would have allowed it. It is against this order that the allottee has come up in revision. The learned counsel for the opposite party has raised a preli­minary objection that the revision is legally not maintainable be­cause it does not arise out of 'original suit' as contemplated by Sec­tion 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The contention is not without substance because the case arose out of proceedings for allotment of a house. Rule 10 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let­ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) pres­cribes procedure for allotment. According to it, an application for allotment of building shall be made in form 'A'. After complying with other requirements the District Magistrate may under Section 16 of the Act require the landlord to let any building or part of a building which has fallen vacant. So in the instant case the pro­ceedings arose on an application. Against that allotment the land­lord filed an appeal which was allowed ex parte and then the present revisionist applied for setting aside the ex parte order but remained unsuccessful. Therefore, the appeal as well as this revision have arisen not from a suit but from an application and in view of Section 115, C.P.C., as it stands amended by the Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, this revision is not maintainable. I am fortified in this view by the case of Hira Lal v. Ranjit Singh C.R. 1942 of 1975 decided by a Divi­sion Bench of this Court on April 8, 1976.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that if for any reason the revision is held to be not maintainable, it may be treated as an appeal. The learned counsel for the opposite party has objected to it also on the ground that Section 37 of the Act attaches finality to the orders passed by the District Judge and, as such, nei­ther an appeal nor revision is maintainable against the order of the District Judge.;