D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. In these two referred Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 101 and 102 of 1977, the significant question of law, which is common to both, that falls for determination is as to whether a tenant of a building regarding which an order of resumption is sought to be passed under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is entitled to be heard before an order of resumption is made thereunder and further whether the tenant can be considered to be a party aggrieved against the resumption order and thus entitled to file an appeal under Sec. 10 of the Act.

2. Before proceeding to consider the proposition posed, above, it may be useful to have a few facts relevant to each letters patent appeal. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 101 of 1977, the appellant-tenant too was furnished with a copy of the show-cause notice sent to his landlord Faqir Chand, respondent No. 3, requiring him (the appellant-tenant) to prefer his objections, if any. The Estate Officer, vide his order dated 5th November, 1973, Annexure-P-2, resumed the building which, in this case, is a house which was put to an impermissible use by