Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, dated September, 17, 1976, whereby it held that there was no abatement of the ejectment application on the death of Tilok Chand, while the ejectment application was pending before the Rent Controller as there was no limitation for bringing the legal representatives of Tilok Chand on the record of the case before the Rent Controller under the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, as the provision of Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the limitation of 90 days applicable thereto was not applicable to the proceedings under the aforesaid Act. He also came to the conclusion that since the ejectment application was filed by two landlords; one having died, the other landlord could proceed with the same as initially also one of the two landlords could bring on application for ejectment. Since the Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment application on the point of abatement without trying the same at the initial stage, the Appellate. Authority remanded the case to the Rent Controller to proceed with the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has come in revision before this Court.
(2.) TO appreciate the points raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the facts of the case may be noticed. Tilok Chand and Tirshala Devi applied for ejectment of their tenants on the ground of subletting, change of user and arrears of rent, etc. in respect of rented land situate at Uklana Mandi district Hissar and impleaded the sub -tenants also as party. While the application for ejectment was pending before Rent Controller, Hissar, on May 9, 1974 Tilok Chand landlord died. In the meantime Uklana Mandi was included in the part of Hansi Tehsil because of some re -organization of tehsils and districts by the State of Haryana and as such the jurisdiction for Uklana Mandi cases came under the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, Hansi and as such the file of this case was transferred from the Rent Controller, Hissar to the Rent Controller, Hansi. When the case came up for consideration before the Rent Controller Hansi, the counsel for the landlord found that the application for bringing the legal representatives of Tilok Chand on record, which was filed before the Rent Controller, Hissar on 29th May, 1974 was not on the file of the case and as such an application, dated 8th February, 1975 along with an affidavit of Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain, Advocate, Hissar was filed before the Rent Controller, Hansi, to the effect that the aforesaid Advocate had filed an application on 29th May, 1974 to bring on record the legal representatives of Tilok Chand, who had died on 9th May, 1974, a copy of which was in the brief of Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain Advocate, Hissar. These facts, stated in the application were duly supported by the affidavit of the aforesaid Advocate. No reply or counter -affidavit was filed thereto on behalf of the tenants and in spite of that the Rent Controller, Hansi, - -vide order, dated 24th February, 1975 dismissed the ejectment application by passing the following two -line cryptic order: Counsel for the parties are present. Arguments have been heard. The suit having abated is hereby dismissed. Against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, Hansi, the legal representatives of Tilok Chand, landlord and Tirshala Devi, who was still alive filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was allowed on 17th September, 1976 and it was held that there was no abatement and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller to entertain the application for impleading the legal representatives of Tilok Chand and for disposal of the case on merits. Against the aforesaid order the tenants have come up in revision. Shri Ram Rang, counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset has urged that the order of the Appellate Authority is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as no appeal was competent before him against the order, dated 24th February, 1975 passed by the Rent Controller, which was in the nature of interlocutory order. In support of his submission he has relied upon Bant Singh Gill v. Shanti Devi and others, : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1360 According to him the decision of the Supreme Court relates to the proceedings under Rent Control Act and with regard to case of abatement and, therefore, it is of great help in deciding the present case. He read para 3 of the aforesaid decision and drew my pointed attention to the following in support of his argument: On the other hand, if, as in the present case, it is held that the suit has not abated and its trial is to continue, there is no final order deciding the rights or liabilities of the parties to the suit. The rights and liabilities have yet to be decided after full trial has been gone through. The decision by the court is only in the nature of a finding on a preliminary issue on which would depend the maintainability of the suit. Such a finding cannot be held to be an order for purposes of Section 34 of the Act of 1952, and, consequently, no appeal against such an order would be maintainable. But while he was reading paragraph 3, I noticed the paragraph prior to the above quoted paragraph which would be applicable to the facts of this case and which is underlined in the following quotation from the aforesaid decision: In the case before us also, all that was done by the application presented by the Appellant on the 13th March, 1961, was to raise a preliminary issue about the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit had abated by virtue of Section 50(2) of the Act of 1958. The Court went into that issue and decided it against the Appellant. If the decision had been in favour of the Appellant and the suit had been dismissed, no doubt there would have been a final order in the suit having the effect of a decree (see the decision of the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Ram Charan Dass v. Hira Nand : A.I.R. 1945 Lah. 298 Now a reading of both the paragraphs would show that if it is a case where the Rent Controller has held that there is no abatement and wants to proceed with the ejectment application, according to the aforesaid first quotation of the Supreme Court decision, there will be no appeal as the order will be treated purely as an interlocutory order not finally deciding either the rights of the parties or disposing of the ejectment application finally. If on the other hand the Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that the ejectment application is to be dismissed for not bringing the legal representatives on record then it will be a final order and appeal against the same would be competent. After the aforesaid first quotation, it was further noticed by the Lordships of the Supreme Court by making reference to their another decision reported in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 799, wherein it was held that in case where no appeal lies from an interlocutory order, such an order can be challenged by the Appellant only in appeal from the final order passed in the proceedings for eviction. Therefore, in both the situations both the parties are allowed the opportunity to challenge the order of Rent Controller passed one way or the other. In case the Rent Controller had held that there is no abatement no appeal would have been competent before the Appellate Authority and possibly the tenant would have come up to this Court in revision or would have raised the point in appeal from the final ejectment order. On the other hand, if the Rent Controller decides as in this case that there is abatement and dismisses the application then it is subject to appeal immediately. Therefore, in view of the Supreme Court's decision itself the appeal before the Appellate Authority was properly presented and cannot be held to be incompetent and as such I over -rule the point raised by Mr. Ram Rang, counsel for the Petitioner.
(3.) THE next point which now falls for consideration is whether there was an application filed for bringing legal representatives of Tilok Chand deceased landlord on record or not and if no such application was filed then what is its effect. It is not disputed by the counsel for the Petitioner that when the ejectment application came up for consideration before the Rent Controller, Hansi, on behalf of the landlord an application, dated 8th February, 1975 duly signed by Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain, Advocate, Hissar and supported by his affidavit was filed stating therein that an application for bringing legal representatives of Tilok Chand deceased was filed by him on 29th May, 1974 before the Rent Controller, Hissar and this was necessitated when it was found from the record that that application is not with the file of the case. It is asserted by the counsel for the Respondent -landlords, which is not disputed by the counsel for the Petitioner -tenant, that Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain, Advocate Hissar is one of the Senior Most Advocates of great eminence and unquestionable integrity and that if the facts were not true he would not have filed an affidavit. Once this is so, there is no reason to ignore his affidavit and accepting the same I would hold that an application for bringing legal representatives of Tilok Chand deceased landlord was filed by Shri Mahabir Parshad Jain, Advocate, Hissar, on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased which even according to the other submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner -tenant would be within limitation. Once I come to this conclusion no point with regard to limitation or no limitation for filing of application for bringing legal representatives on the record of a case under the Rent Control Act would arise. Accordingly I leave this point open to be decided in some other case.;