PREM CHAND JAIN, J. - (1.) THE short point involved in this petition is whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order passed by ejectment.
(2.) THE contention of Mr. N.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 no appeal is maintainable against such an order and that only a revision could be filed in this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon judgments of this Court in Lakhi Ram v. Sagar Chand and another, 1963 Punjab Law Reporter 691; Rattan singh v. Harblas, (1970 R.C.R. 688) 1970 Punjab Law Reporter 926; Vasdev v. Ram Lila Sabha Karnal, 1975 Rent Control Reporter 92; Mohan Lal v. Firm Udhmi Ram Tara Chand and another, 1977(1) Rent Law Reporter 475; and Amar Chand v. Bhim Sain, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 21. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent, that an appeal is maintainable under the aforesaid Act; that all the judgments referred to above are not applicable to the provisions of the Haryana Act as the same have been rendered under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949; that earlier in view of the notification, which reads as under :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) clause (1) of section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to confer on all District and Sessions Judges in the Punjab in respect of the Urban areas in their respective existing jurisdiction, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purpose of the said Act, with regard to orders made by Rent Controllers under sections 4, 10, 12, and 13 of the said Act." it had rightly been held that no appeal lay against such an order; that now the said notification has been superseded and a new notification has been promulgated, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and in supersession of all previous notifications issued in this behalf the Governor of Haryana hereby confers on all the Deputy Commissioners in the State the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of the said Act in the areas of their respective jurisdiction." That in view of the change of the phraseology in the new notification now an appeal would lie against such an order before the Appellate Authority and that all the decisions referred to above have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find that the question raised before me deserves to be decided by a larger Bench. There can be no gainsaying that in all the judgments, referred to above, the new notification has not been taken into consideration. It is also quite evident that the new notification, which confers powers of hearing appeals, does not make reference to any specific section of the Act. In these circumstances, there appears to be some merit in the contention of Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent, that in view of the change of phraseology in the new notification the intention of the State was to vest the Appellate Authority with the powers of hearing appeals against all the orders passed by the Rent Controller.
(3.) ANYHOW , without dilating any further on this aspect of the matter and in view of the judgments which have been cited before me, it has become necessary to get the matter decided authoritatively by a larger Bench. Accordingly, I direct the Officer that the papers of this case be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the case. The Office is further directed to obtain orders for an early hearing of this case. April 15, 1980. Sd/- Prem Chand Jain, Judge. , 1983 Prem Chand Jain, J. (Oral) - The short point involved in this petitions is, whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order passed for ejectment.;