Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2012 has referred the following issues for the decision by a Larger Bench:

(a) If the notification dated 14.04.1947 is still holding the field by which only an order passed under Sections 4, 10, 12 & 13 is made appealable, then whether all orders passed by the Rent Controller have become appealable in terms of the notification No.4137/2-CII-76/17354 dated 29.04.1976 issued by the Government of Punjab?

(b) Whether the observation of the Supreme Court in para No.25 of the Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal, [2011(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 2018 : 2011(4) Law Herald (SC) 2492] : (Supra) i.e. (2011) 11 SCC 672, while referring to Section 15(1)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 only, is an observation in context of the facts of that case as there was no issue of maintainability of appeal or revision arising out of interlocutory orders before it and there is no reference to Section 15(5) of the Act or Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973?

(c) Whether the orders passed by the Rent Controller during the proceedings exercising its inherent powers like in the case of amendment of pleadings, impleadment of parties, setting aside of ex parte proceedings, restoration of petition etc. etc... are revisable under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949?

2. The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises is that in a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner-tenant was proceeded ex parte. An application was filed by the tenant to set aside the ex parte proceedings as well the ex-parte ejectment order under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), which was dismissed on 01.02.2008. Initially, an objection was raised before this Court that the present revision petition is not maintainable, as the order declining to set aside ex parte proceedings is an appealable order. Reliance was placed upon Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal (2011) 11 SCC 672.

3. Learned Single Judge while hearing the revision petition noticed the judgments of this court reported as Guranditta Ram Vs. Murari Lal & another 1974 PLR 579; Bikramjit Singh Paul Vs. Jaswant Singh 1976 PLR 16; Daya Chand Hardayal Vs. Bir Chand 1983 PLR 775 (F.B.); Chander Mohan Mittal Vs. Bihari Lal Gupta 1985 (1) PLR 458 & Shri Krishan Lal & another Vs. The Punjab, Backward Classes Land Development & Finance Corporation, Chandigarh 1985 (2) RCR (Rent) 59, wherein this court has taken a view that the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller under Sections 4, 10, 12 & 13 alone are appealable.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord relied upon Harjit Singh Uppal’s case (supra) and another Single Judge judgment of this Court in Sham Sunder & others Vs. Ravinder Nath Sharma, [2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3442] : 2011 (2) RCR (Rent) 608 to contend that an appeal lies against all orders passed by a Rent Controller.

5. Learned Single Judge in the order of reference observed that the notification dated 29.04.1976 has not superseded the notification dated 14.04.1947, as observed by the learned Single Bench in Sham Sunder’s case (supra). Therefore, the District Judges or the Additional District Judges have been conferred powers to hear appeals against the orders passed under Sections 4, 10, 12 & 13 of the Act. In view of the said fact, learned Single Judge referred the matter on the issues, as mentioned above, by the Larger Bench. In pursuance of the said order, the matter has been placed before this Bench.

6. Since the issues are purely legal, it may be advantageous to reproduce relevant statutory provisions and the notifications issued from time to time:

The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949

“15. Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government:

(1) (a) The St