Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) PARTIES Counsel are present. Respondent was not called upon to file counter affidavit hence the same is ignored.
(2.) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere. As for as quashing the order dated 8.11.1998 passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh, respondent No. 1 is concerned, this Court agrees with the view taken by the revisional Court that the revision filed before him against the order passed by the executing Court in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not maintainable. It is well settled law that appeal or revisions are creatures of statute and they cannot be claimed as of right. Since no revision is provided under the provisions of the Rent Control Act against an order passed in proceedings arising out of an application under Section 21(1)(a), the instant revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Only Section 18 makes a provision for revisions under the Act and it is specifically provided therein that revisions under the said section can be filed only against the orders made under Sections 16 and 19 of the Act. This is the consistent view of this Court that Section 115 C.P.C. has not been made applicable to the provisions of Rent Control Act either by virtue of Section 34 or Rule 98 of the Rules framed under the Act. Section 141 C.P.C. also cannot be pressed into service as the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the Act acts only as persona designata and not as a Court of Civil jurisdiction.
(3.) I find support in this view in the decision in Vijay Singh v. VIth Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, 1998 (33) ALR 472.;