Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dirsctei against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ambala, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 19(sic)3, dated 31st October, 1974. The facts necessary for decision of this petition are not in dispute. The Petitioner had filed an application for the eviction of the Respondent from the premises in dispute on 20th October, 1970. The petition was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ambala Cantt., who was the prescribed authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, in force at that time, subsequently in the State of Haryana Act No. II of 1973 came into force. This Act was amended by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1974 (Act No. 4 of 1974). The Haryana Act as amended was made applicable to the Cantonment areas by the Central Government by notification No. S.R.O. No. 55 dated 24th January 1974, with effect from 5th April, 1973. Unmindful of this, the Subordinate Judge, in whose Court the application for eviction was pending, decided the application on 2nd February, 1974. An appeal was taken against this order to the Appellate Authority, who accepted it and held that the order of the Rent Controller was a nullity, as on the date he passed the order the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judges to decide applications under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction Act had been taken away and conferred on the Sub -Divisional Officers, Civil. In this order no further direction was given as to what was to be the fate of the application for eviction which had been made by the landlord. The only prayer made before ma is that the direction should be issued that the proceedings which were originally pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge should be transferred to the Court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Civil, in terms of Section 20A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction. Act as amended by Act 4 of 1974.
(2.) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and find that the prayer made by the Petitioner is justified and merits acceptance. Section 20A clearly provides that all proceedings pending before Subordinate Judge appointed to perform the functions of Controllers shall from the date of the coming into operation of the Haryana Upon (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act stand transferred to the Sub Divisional Officers Civil appointed under Clause (b) of Section 2 to perform the functions of the Controllers, Act No. 4 of 1974 had come into operation on 24th January, 1974. If this provision had come to the notice of the Subordinate Judge, he would have transferred the proceedings to the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Civil. As the order of the Subordinate Judge had been set aside as being a nullity, it would be just and proper to further direct that the proceedings which were pending in this Court shall stand transferred to the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Civil an order which the Subordinate Judge would have himself passed if he had noticed the amendment to the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. On behalf of the Respondent, it is prayed that the proceedings should start de novo This is a matter which is for the Kent Controller to decide in accordance with law and it would be open to the Respondent to raise the point in the Court of the Rent Controller whit the proceedings are taken up there for decision. I, therefore, accept the petition to the extent that a direction is issued that the records of the case be transferred to the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Civil, Ambala, who will then dispose of the case in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs in this petition.;