RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.10.2011 of the Rent Controller Patiala assessing the provisional rent.
(2.) THE aforesaid order is appealable in view of judgment of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, 2011(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 247 : 2011(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 438 : 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 317 : JT 2011(6) SC 236, wherein it has been observed as under:- "25. Section 15(1) (b) of the 1949 Rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal. The Section provides for limitation for filing an appeal from that order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act. There is no specific provision in the Section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the Rent Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order." Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the instant revision petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.;