JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, Actg. C. J.—Having heard learned Counsel for the parties further today I am of opinion that the objection taken by Shri D. D. Sood on behalf of the respondent regarding the maintainability of the present revision is sound. 2. Section 16 (8) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter, "the Act") provides that: "No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section : Provided that the High Court may, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit." While section 24 (1) (b) of the Act says that: "24 (1) (b). Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller, except the orders for the recovery of possession made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 16, may, within fifteen 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........." 3. It is clear from these two provisions that except in a case where an order for recovery of possession of any premises has been made by the Controller in exercise of powers under section 16, where the order can only be assailed in a revision before this Court, all other orders, including an order refusing the recovery of possession of any premises, of the Controller under section 16, can be assailed in appeal. The present application in revision is held as not maintainable. 4. A prayer was made by Shri A. K. Goel that the application in revision, filed in this Court, may be ordered to be returned to him to enable him to file it before the Appellate Authority. The present application in revision is held as not maintainable. 4. A prayer was made by Shri A. K. Goel that the application in revision, filed in this Court, may be ordered to be returned to him to enable him to file it before the Appellate Authority. Reliance was placed upon the principle contained in Order VI1 Rule 10 C. P. C. A perusal of Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. makes it clear beyond doubt that it is only available in a case where the proceedings are instituted before a wrong forum and not in a case where proceedings initiated, inter alia, by an application in revision, are found not maintainable on account of any legal provision. Admittedly, no application in revision would lie before an appellate authority under the provisions of the Act. Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. would not be attracted in terms, nor would its principles be attracted in this situation. 5. Shri Goel then prayed that an order may be made to the effect that the certified copy of the impugned order, filed alongwith the present application in revision, may be returned to him for being utilised for filing an appeal under the provisions of the Act. The prayer is allowed subject to the condition that before taking back the certified copy, the learned Counsel for the applicant would place on record an uncertified copy of that order for purposes of record. 6. Shri Goel further sought leave of the Court for assailing the order under challenge in appeal. Such leave is not required, for, the petitioner would, naturally, be free to avoid of any remedy available to him in law and in accordance therewith. Order accordingly.