- (1.) This revision is filed by the tenant under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] against order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 17.03.1994 and the ex-parte eviction order dated 06.09.1994 in respect of the first floor portion of the SCO No. 24, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh (demised premises), has been declined. Notice of motion was issued in this revision petition on 21.04.2008 and on 26.07.2011, the following order was passed by this Court: Vide impugned order the Rent Controller has rejected the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, 2011 6 JT 236 has observed as under - 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. Thus, as per the aforesaid observations, there is no distinction between the final and interlocutory order passed by Rent Controller in the proceedings under 1949 Rent Act, whether in view of the aforesaid judgment, the present revision is competent or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short adjournment to address arguments. List on 29.08.2011.
(2.) In view of the aforesaid order, submissions have been made by both the learned counsel for the parties regarding maintainability of the revision petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is revisable under Section 15(5) of the Act. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following authorities: 1. Gumnditta Ram v. Murari Lal and another, 1974 76 PunLR 579; 2. Bikramjit Singh Paul v. Jaswant Singh, 1976 78 PunLR 16; 3. Daya Chand Hardayat v. Bir Chand, 1983 85 PunLR 775 ; 4. Chander Mohan Mittal v. Bihari Lal Gupta, 1985 87 PunLR 458; 5. Shri Krishan Lal and another v. The Punjab, Backward Classes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh, 1985 2 RCR(Rent) 59.;