Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 whereby Rent Controller, Ludhiana has assessed the provisional rent of the demised premises.
(2.) IT is useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal : 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. In view of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court wherein it has been stated that for maintaining an appeal under Section 15(1)(b) it does not make any difference between the final order and the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act, the impugned order is appealable.
(3.) FACED with this situation, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has prayed that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as aforesaid.;