Bhandari, J.

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. Mur