The provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether Clause (3) of Rule 1 of O.23 of the Code of Civil Procedure is stricto sensu applicable to the proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , is the meaningful question which has necessitated this reference for decision by a Division Bench, by the learned single Judge.

2. The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly delineated. The respondent Smt. Sukhdev Kaur and others had instituted a petition against the petitioner Ram Dass, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Sangrur, way back on August 16, 1974. After a protracted trial over more than three years, the Controller, by a considered judgment dismissed the petition with costs on November 26, 1977. Aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred an appeal which came up for decision on merits before the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, on May 25, 1978. On that very day, the respondents put in an application expressly under Order 23, Rule 1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking that they may be permitted to withdraw the ejectment petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.

This prayer was strenuously opposed on behalf of the petitioner but the appellate authority without even calling for any reply in writing from the petitioner allowed the said prayer of the respondents on that very day by the below quoted short order:-

"The appellant has filed an application to withdraw the application for ejectment as it failed due to formal defects. Notice has been given to the counsel for the other party. He objects to the withdrawal. I have perused the file and find that the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, suffers on account of formal defects. The same is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application on the same cause of action. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs."

The present revision petition was then preferred primarily on the ground that O.23, R.1 of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable within the rent jurisdiction. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge he noticed a conflict of precedent on this issue and has referred the matter to a larger Bench for its determination.

3. Now to appreciate the aforesaid legal question what calls for pointed attention at the out-set is the very nature of the tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act ). Section 2 (b) of the Act defining the word Controller is in the following terms :-

"Controller means any person who is appointed by the State Government to perform the function of a Controller under this Act."

It would be manifest from the above that a wide ranging power is given to the State Government to appoint any person as a Controller under the Act. Again reference to Section 15 (1) (a) empowering the state Government to appoint the Appellate Authority is instructive :-

"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 or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order."

This would again show the wide amplitude of the power vested in the State Government to name the Appellate Authorities under the Act.

4 I may point out that considerable misapprehension and confusion sometimes arises in this context from the fact that usually the powers of the Controller under the Act have been conferred on subordinate Judges and the powers of Appellate Authority now are also specifically vested by notification in the District Judges. This fortuitous circumstance, however, should not lead one to the error of assuming that thereby the Controllers or the Appellate Authorities became Civil Courts as such. They retain their essential nature as tribunals or persona designata unde