Ex parte eviction set aside: tenant status survives, and the rent controller can restore the proceeding for fresh hearing.

Setting aside an ex parte eviction order nullifies the execution taken under it, so the tenant's possession does not become trespassory merely because the eviction had been carried out before restoration. The landlord-tenant relationship continues to matter in the restored house rent control proceeding. The House Rent Controller under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 also had jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order and restore the matter for fresh hearing, because the proceeding is civil in nature and, where not inconsistent with the Act, the Code of Civil Procedure applies so far as practicable, including Order 9 Rule 13.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tenant whose eviction in execution of an ex parte order was later set aside could still be treated as a tenant and not as a trespasser in the restored house rent control proceeding; (ii) Whether the House Rent Controller under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 had jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order and restore the proceeding for fresh hearing.

Issue (i): Whether a tenant whose eviction in execution of an ex parte order was later set aside could still be treated as a tenant and not as a trespasser in the restored house rent control proceeding.

Analysis: The setting aside of the ex parte eviction order nullified the execution taken in pursuance of that order. Once the foundation order ceased to exist, the eviction based on it could not survive in law. The tenant's continued occupation after such restoration did not convert the legal character of his possession into that of a trespasser, and the original landlord-tenant relationship remained relevant for deciding the pending eviction proceeding.

Conclusion: The tenant continued to be liable to be proceeded against as a tenant, and the appellate order of eviction could not be assailed on the ground that no landlord-tenant relationship survived.

Issue (ii): Whether the House Rent Controller under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 had jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order and restore the proceeding for fresh hearing.

Analysis: Proceedings before the House Rent Controller are civil in nature and Section 12 of the Act requires the enquiry to be held, so far as practicable, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Prior decisions had consistently applied Order 9, including Rule 13, to such proceedings where no inconsistency with the Act existed. The restoration power was held to be within the Controller's jurisdiction, supported by the scheme of the Act and by the distinction between implied powers necessary to exercise jurisdiction and inherent powers. The contrary reliance on appellate remand principles did not dislodge this position.

Conclusion: The House Rent Controller had jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order and restore the case for fresh disposal.

Final Conclusion: Both challenges to the appellate order failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the special statute makes the procedural law of civil courts applicable so far as practicable and there is no inconsistency, the tribunal may invoke Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside an ex parte order and restore the proceeding, and the legal effect of an ex parte eviction disappears once that order is set aside.

---