- (1.) The present revision petition is directed against order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, Moga wherein, the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed on the account of being not maintainable as it was against the provisional order of assessment passed by the Rent Controller on 10.12.2013. The stay was accordingly vacated. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that vide order dated 10.12.2013 in the eviction petition filed by the respondentlandlord wherein he claimed rent at Rs. 4,500/- per month from February, 2008, provisional assessment was made by the Rent Controller and the petitioner-tenant was directed to tender the rent from February, 2008 to December, 2013 for 70 months @ Rs. 4,500/- per month. The total amount of the rent came to Rs. 3,15,000/- and after adding the interest of Rs. 55,912.50 and costs of Rs. 1,000/-, total assessed amount was Rs. 3,71,912/-. The payment was to be made on 03.01.2014.
(2.) The stance of the petitioner-tenant is that rent was Rs. 500/- since he was a tenant under the original landlord and the rent note had been forged. However, as noticed, appeal has been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable placing reliance upon Division Bench judgment in Tirlok Singh Anand and M/s. Prem Chand and Sons and others,2012 4 CivCC 87. Reliance was also placed upon judgment of this Court in Anil Gulati vs. Anshul Kathuria, 2014 2 RCR(Rent) 282 to sustain the said order.
(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability by placing reliance upon Tirlok Singh's case . This Court, while examining the said issue and whether the appeal lies before the Appellate Authority against an order of fixing provisional rent, held that the order of provisional assessment is also an order which is passed under the provisions of Section 13 of The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and, therefore, would be appealable in C.R. No. 7629 of 2014, Taninder Tandon vs. Dr. Anjan Parkash Kaur decided on 14.11.2014. The relevant observations read thus:- "Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that firstly the appeal was not maintainable and placed reliance upon Tirlok Singh Anand and M/s. Prem Chand and Sons and others, 2012 (4) Civil Court Cases 87 and secondly submitted that the Appellate Authority was not justified in enhancing the amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has justified the order to the extent that the Division Bench itself referred to the notification dated 14.04.1997 and held that orders passed under Section 13 of the Act are appealable. It is submitted that the provisional rent was based on the said provisions and, therefore, the appeal was very much maintainable. The plea of the petitioner that the appeal before the Appellate Authority against an order of fixing provisional rent was not maintainable is not justifiable in view of the Division Bench judgment in Tirlok Singh's case itself. The Division Bench decided the issue as to which of the orders are appealable before the Appellate Authority and which are revisable. After noticing the 3 questions which were referred by the Learned Single Judge, it was held that the notification dated 14.07.1947 would be applicable to the orders passed by the Rent Controller under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the Act and they would be appealable orders. Other orders which did not come under the provisions of the said Sections would be revisable under Section 15. The following questions were under consideration before the Division Bench:- "(a) If the notification dated 14.04.1947 is still holding the field by which only an order passed under Sections 4, 10, 12 & 13 is made appealable, then whether all orders passed by the Rent Controller have become appealable in terms of the notification No.4137/2-CII-76/17354 dated 29.04.1976 issued by the Government of Punjab? (b) Whether the observation of the Supreme Court in para No.25 of the Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal i.e., 2011 11 SCC 672, while referring to Section 15(1)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 only, is an observation in context of the facts of that case as there was no issue of maintainability of appeal or revision arising out of interlocutory orders before it and there is no reference to Section 15 (5) of the Act or Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973? (c) Whether the orders passed by the Rent Controller during the proceedings exercising its inherent powers like in the case of amendment of pleadings, impleadment of parties, setting aside of ex parte proceedings, restoration of petition etc. etc... are revisable under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949?;