Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) MOHAN Lal has filed this revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against the order dated 12th November, 1973, of the Appellate Authority, Hissar.
(2.) THE Respondents were the tenants on the shop of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an application under the East Punjab Urban Rent(sic) Restriction Act for the ejectment of the Respondents before the Rent Controller, Bhiwani. This application was allowed by an ex parte order dated 9th December, 1971. The Respondents made an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex -parte eviction order which was dismissed. Dissatisfied by the order of the Rent Controller, they filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hissar (an Appellate Authority under Rent Restriction Act), which was allowed and the ex -parte eviction order was set aside and the case was restored to the original file of the Rent Controller. Hence this revision petition by the landlord. 2. The only point urged by Mr. G.C. Mittal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against an order passed by the Rent Controller on an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, it has acted in excess of jurisdiction. I find merit in what Mr Mittal says. There is no provision of appeal under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the order passed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte order The only remedy open to the respondents tenants was either to file an appeal against the ejectment order before the Appellate Authority or to file a revision petition in the High Court under section l55o(sic) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Kent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The tenants did not avail either of these remedies. In this situation, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. In Lakhi Ram v. Sagar Chand, 1963 P.L.R 691, a Single Bench of this Court held that an Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal against an order pasted by the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order. The same view is taken in three unreported authorities of this Court in Dip Chand v. Ram Sarup C.R. No. 599 of 1957, decided on 20th February, 1958, Amin Chand v. Kundan Lal CR No. 483 of 1957 Civil Revision No. 483 of 1937 decided on 4th September, 1959 and Daulat Ram v. Mohan Lal C. R. No. 240 of 1964, Civil Revision No. 240 of 1964 decided on 1st November, 1965. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside. No costs.;