MANOHAR LAL L NADARCHAND Vs. MOHAN LAL GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises the question whether a Rent Controller appointed under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948, is at liberty to set aside an ex parte order passed by himself.

(2.) A tenant applied to a Bent Controller for the setting aside of an ex parte decree passed against him, but the latter was unable to accede to this request as he was of the opinion that although the tenant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the Court, there was no provision in the Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act which empowered him to do so. The order of the Rent Controller was upheld by the District Judge in appeal and the tenant has accordingly come to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) THERE are at least three decisions of the Madras High Court which appear to propound the proposition that as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings under the Rent Control Act, it would be a mistake to apply the principles of those provisions to the said proceedings, Devichand moolchand v. Dhanraj Kantilal, AIR 1949 Mad 53 (A); Miss Revathi v. Venkataraman, AIR 1951 Mad 745 (B); Ahdul Khadir v. A. K. Murthy, AIR 1948 mad 235 (C ). The Nagpur High Court has gone a step further by holding that a rent Controller has no inherent power to set aside an ex parte order, as this power has been excluded by clause 21 (3) of Rent Control Order, 1949, which provides that an order of the Rent Controller shall be final subject only to the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in appeal and that it will not be open to reviaw : Ruplal Sitaram v. Sheo Shankar, AIR 1953 Nag 191 (D ).