JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred by the landlord against the order dated 4-6-1991 of the appellate Authority under Section 15(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (briefly ‘the Act’).
2. The landlord in May, 1990 filed a petition for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the building in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
3. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, the tenant applied to the Rent Controller under Section 12 of the Act for allowing him to make such repairs as the Controller thought necessary and deduct the costs of the repairs from the payment made by him. During the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, the tenant filed a misc. application alleging therein that the landlord has made a hole in the roof of the shop and when-ever it rains the rain water comes in the shop damaging the material lying therein. On this application, the Rent Controller inspected the shop in question in presence of the parties and found that some of the roof though was in a damaged condition, yet it was repaired with bricks and plaster, and therefore, found that there was no possibility of rain water coming into the shop. The misc. application was thus declined. Being aggrieved against the same, the tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate Authority, who vide the impugned order modified the order of the Rent Controller and permitted the tenant to carry out the repairs at his own expense. This order is being challenged by the landlord in the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the landlord contended that under Section 15(2) final order passed under Section 12 of the Act is appealable, but no appeal lies against an interim order passed by the Rent Controller in pending proceedings
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant contended that appeal is maintainable against an interim order. He further argued that even if the appeal was not maintainable, then also the landlord cannot be allowed to raise such an objection as he failed to raise the same before the appellate Authority.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that no appeal against an interim order is maintainable and therefore, the order under revision passed by the appellate Authority is without jurisdiction. No doubt, Section 15(2) of the Act provides that any person aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent controller may prefer an appeal, but it doesn’t mean that all the orders passed by the Rent Controller are appealable. The only orders appealable are the orders which finally determine the controversy between the landlord and the tenant.
7. Admittedly petition under Section 12 of the Act is still pending decision before the Rent Controller and therefore, if at all the tenant was aggrieved against such an interim order, he could either invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act or he could make a grievance against the same at the time of filing the appeal against the final order of the Rent Controller passed under Section 12 of the Act.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the tenant that objection with regard to jursidiction of the appellate Court is aot open to the landlord in the revisional jurisdiction, is without any merit. The appeal is creation of a statute and there is no inherent power in the appellate Authority to entertain an appeal which is not expressly provided by law. For this I find support from a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as M/s. Daya Chand Haryayal v. Bir Chand, (1983) 85 P. L. R. 775 (F.B.) wherein it was held that jurisdiction of the appellate Authority under the Act is confined only to final orders passed by the Rent Controller and not to iner-locutory orders. No appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which is not passed under any of the provisions of the Act, and therefore, the objection with regard to inherent jurisdiction of the appellate Authority to entertain an appeal can certaialy be raised by the person aggrieved in revision.
9. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 4-6-1991 of the appellate Authority being without jurisdiction is, set aside. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.