Civil Revision No.4383 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4383 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:.08.12.2011 Renu Sharma and another ....Petitioners Versus Karamjit Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 15.06.2011 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte order of eviction dated 17.8.2010 has been rejected. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17.08.2010 of the Rent Controller vide which his eviction has ordered. Undisputedly, the order dated 17.08.2010 ordering the eviction was passed on account of the fact that petitioner has failed to deposit the provisional rent as assessed vide order dated 15.6.2010. The application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 17.08.2010 was rejected by the Rent Controller vide order dated 15.06.2011. The said order dated Civil Revision No.4383 of 2011 (O&M) 2 15.6.2011 is appealable in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (d) which reads thus:- * * * * * * * * * “(d) an order under rule 13 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte.” * * * * * * * * * It is also useful to refer to Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which reads thus:- “15.Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government:- (1)(a) The State Government may, by a general or special order, by notification confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. (b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction.[In computing the period of fifteen days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded.] (2)On such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal. (3)The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after sending for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either Civil Revision No.4383 of 2011 (O&M) 3 personally or through the Controller. (4)The decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of Law [except as provided in sub-section (5) of this section]. (5)The High Court may, at any time on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.] In view of the aforesaid specific provisions, the impugned orders are appealable. Thus, the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid orders is not maintainable. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the instant revision petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy against the impugned orders, in accordance with law. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent states that he has moved an application for grant of mesne profit from the date of order of eviction vide C.M.No.22551-CII of 2011. The question with regard to payment of mesne profit from the date of eviction order as prayed in civil miscellaneous application is also kept open and the landlord is entitled to raise the same before the Appropriate Authority. Thus, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. December 08, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE Civil Revision No.4383 of 2011 (O&M) 4