T.R. Handa, J.
1. The petitioner Som Nath is the landlord arid the respondent Sewa Ram is his tenant in respect of a residential set forming part of the premises known as 'Som Niwas' situate in Ban Mohalla, Solan. The petitioner brought an action for ejectment of the respondent from the said premises under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the grounds of (i) non payment of arrears of rent (ii) personal requirement. The Rent Controller found that the respondent was liable for ejectment on both the above mentioned grounds and he, therefore, vide his order dt. 29-4-1977 directed the respondent to put the petitioner-landlord in possession of the demised premises within three months from the date of his order. In view of the provisions of the first proviso to Section 14(2) (i) of the Act, however, the Controller observed in his order that the order of ejectment passed against the respondent on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent would' operate only if the respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent which were assessed at Rs. 360/- plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month.
2. The respondent, however, without depositing the arrears of rent in terms of the orders of the Rent Controller preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against that order. The learned Appellate Authority vide its order dt. 16-8-1979 set-aside the order of ejectment passed against the respondent on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord. The order of ejectment passed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was, however, maintained.
3. It was thereafter that the respondent-tenant deposited the arrears of rent along with the statutory interest on 29th Aug. 1979, that is, within one month of the order of the Appellate Authority.
4. The petitioner-landlord then applied to the Rent Controller for execution of the order of ejectment. The learned Rent Controller on 31-12-1979 dismissed that execution petition on the ground that the respondent-tenant having deposited the arrears of rent along with interest within one month of the order of the Appellate Authority, the order of ejectment passed on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent was not operative and could not be executed. It is against this order dt. 31-12-1979 recorded by the Rent Controller that the petitioner-landlord has approached this Court in revision.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the relevant provisions of the Act, I am of the view that the present revision petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this short ground Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act empowers the State Government to confer powers of 'Appellate Authorities' for the purposes of the Act on such officers and authorities as it may think fit and in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. Sub-clause (b) then further enjoins that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may within 15 days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority, may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. It thus follows that an order passed by the Controller in exercise of his jurisdiction vested in him under the Act is appealable before the appellate authority appointed by the State Government under Section 21 of the Act. It is not disputed that all the District Judges in the State have been conferred the powers of the appellate authority for the purposes of the Act by the State Government under Section 21 of the Act and it is again not open to dispute that the impugned order of the Rent Controller was passed by him in exercise of his jurisdiction vested in him under Section 23 of the Act. This order, therefore, was certainly appealable and the appeal lay before the appellate authority under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. The limitation for filing such an appeal was 15 days. The petitioner having failed to avail of that remedy, he cannot be now allowed to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.