ORDER
Shyamasundar, J.
1. Although this petition is listed for orders, I propose to dispose it off finally since I have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Joshi for the petitioner and the very vehement arguments of Mr. Sampathkumar on behalf of the contesting-respondent, who happens to be an allottee of a controlled premises. It would appear that the landlord and there is no dispute about it, had along with others applies to the Rent Controller for allotment of the premises to himself inter alia objecting to the allotment to somebody else. The Rent Controller, who disposed off the aforesaid proceedings on 11-5-1988, simply stated he proposed to dispose of the proceedings ex parte and went on to make a short order which reads:
2. The above order makes it very obvious the learned Rent Controller has not paid any heed or taken note of the stand-point of either the landlord or the other applicants. I am afraid that this is not the way jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Rent Control Act has got to be exercised. While I do not expect the Rent Controller to write a highly reasoned or detailed order, it would be well within my right to” point out that the Rent Controller is duty bound to pay some heed to the contending stand-points put forward before him in a case like this where there were five applicants for the house in question. His order is sans reason and sans consideration of the claims of any of the 5 applicants before him for which reason alone the order must be struck down. But when worse is to follow in that when the petitioner-landlord approached the Deputy Commissioner by way of an appeal under Section 12 and among other things he complains that on that day when the Deputy Commissioner purported to hear the matter on 27-5-1989, as could be seen from the order at Annexure ‘C’, neither the petitioner nor the respondent was present. The Deputy Commissioner has also noticed in his order that the parties were absent on that day. I do not have the records of the Deputy Commissioner before me and therefore cannot affirm or vouch for the correctness of the contention that the Deputy Commissioner had not earlier Indicated that he will hear the matter on 27-5-1989. Be that as it may, what is more horrifying is the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, an I.A.S. Officer, proceeded to dispose off the appeal on the basis of the report which the Rent Controller is stated to have made to him in connection with the appeal memo submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner. This procedure of depending on a report made by the Subordinate Authority whose order is Impugned before the Appellate Authority, to say the least, is most repugnant and pugnacious to all right thinking minds. The Act provides only one appeal against: the order of the Rent Controller and that is to the Deputy Commissioner unless It be the party aggrieved can move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no other remedy or relief of the aggrieved at all under the Law. The Act regulates possession and enjoyment of one’s own premises to the detriment of the owner. It also makes serious inroads Into the rights of an owner but then all these are countenanced and tolerated because the Act is a piece of Social Welfare Legislation. But the limited avenues It opens up for a person like the petitioner to complain of ah unjust order or Inappropriate treatment meted out by the Rent Controller, is sought to be denied by the authority which under the law is created for the purpose of listening to the anguished voice of a landlord, then probably it becomes difficult to fathom the beneficial effect of the laws written into the statute through provisions specifically enacted for that purpose. The law does not permit the Deputy- Commissioner to dispose off an appeal taking into consideration any hush-hush report made by the Rent Controller and that too behind the back of the appellant. The very fact that the order of the Rent Controller has been challenged and some grounds have been set out, tt becomes prima facie the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to investigate into the tenability of the complaint and not just to applaud the acts of the Rent Controller who had passed the impugned order. The manner in which the Deputy Commissioner nas gone about these proceedings is not merely untenable but is totally indefensible. There is little to choose in between the order of the Rent Controller and that of the Deputy Commissioner. Thus it seems to me that ends of justice will be better met in this case by reversing both the orders. Therefore, it is, I allow this Writ Petition and quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure ‘C’ and that of the Rent Controller at Annexure ‘B’, remit the case back to the Rent Controller for a denovo disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made herein particularly heeding the obvious deficiencies that are found to have affected the order made by him on the earlier occasion. On remit the proceedings before the Rent Controller will stand revived and be taken up for hearing on 16-7-1990. On that day, both the petitioner and respondent will report to the Rent Controller for further Instructions, Rule issued and affirmed. No costs.
3. Sri Sampathkumar, enjoins upon me to direct the Rent Controller to dispose off the matter expeditiously. I direct the Rent Controller to dispose off the same within one month from the first date of hearing of the matter, after remit.
