CR No. 1873 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No. 1873 of 2006 Decided on January19,2011. Sohan Lal Mehta --Petitioner vs. Surinder Pal --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.V.G.Dogra,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.J.S.Bhatia,Advocate,for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2005 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, by which eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act'), has been dismissed. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revision petition before this Court is per-se not maintainable as the impugned order is appealable before the Appellate Court in terms of Section 15 of the Act. It is submitted that had it been a case where 'leave to appeal' is not granted by the Rent Controller and the CR No. 1873 of 2006 2 eviction order had been passed, then it would have been altogether different situation because then it would have come within the purview of Section 18 (A) (8) of the Act as no appeal or second appeal is maintainable against the order of recovery of possession, but where 'leave to appeal' has been granted by the Rent Controller, and the trial has commenced, the petition takes the colour of Section 13 instead of Section 13-A of the Act and order of eviction is thus appealable under Section 15 of the Act. In this context, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Anr Vs. Vijay Kumar 2009 (4) R.C.R.(Civil) 272 and an un-reported order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No.2780 of 2010 (O&M) Ashok Kumar Sood Vs. Rana Manoranjan Singh Aujla decided on 5.5.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view thereof, this matter may be referred to the learned Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the lis between the parties. Faced with this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proceedings before the learned Appellate Authority may be made time bound as the petitioner is a senior citizen and has retired long back. In view of the above circumstances, this revision petition is held to be not maintainable against the order of Rent Controller in view of the law laid down by this Court in Manoj Kumar Aggarwal's Case (Supra). Since the parties are ad-idem that this matter may be CR No. 1873 of 2006 3 referred to the learned Appellate Authority, with a direction to decide the lis between the parties, I therefore, direct the Registry to send the record of this case to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, who shall either keep this case to himself or transfer it to any other learned Appellate Authority under his jurisdiction, to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it as it pertains to a case of personal necessity of the landlord who has since retired. The parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Ludhiana on 10.2.2011. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for both the parties on payment of usual charges. January 19,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge