JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J. (Oral). 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner landlady against the respondent tenants under sub section (5) of Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order dated October 17, 2000 passed by Sub Judge (4) Shimla, who was also exercising jurisdiction as Rent Controller under the Act. 2. The application was for eviction of the respondent - tenant. When the proceeding were pending, an application was made by the petitioner landlady under sub rule (4) of Rule 2 and Rule 17 A of Order 18 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for permitting her to examine two witnesses, (i) Varinder Kumar and (ii) Rajeev Kumar Sood. It was averred in the application that though a list of three witnesses had been given by the petitioner (1) Ashok Kumar, (2) Veer Chand Kapoor and (3) Amarjeet Singh, they were evading service of notice and has expressed their reluctance to give statements. It was, therefore, necessary in the interest of justice to allow her to examine the aforesaid witnesses. 3. The application was opposed by the other side and the Rent controller, after hearing both the sides, rejected the application. The said order is challenged by the petitioner-landlady in the present revision. 4. A number of points were raised at the time of hearing of this petition. It is, however, not necessary to discuses them in view of preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24(5) of the Act the provision enables the High Court, at any time on the application of the aggrieved party or on its own motion call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceeding. It also authorizes the High Court to pass an appropriate order as it deems fit. 5. It also authorizes the High Court to pass an appropriate order as it deems fit. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that relevant provision is clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 24 of the Act and not Section 24(5) thereof, the relevant part of Section 24 reads thus: "(a) The State Government may, by general or special order, by notification, confer on such officers and authorities, as it thinks fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. (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. (In computing the period of fifteen days, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded)". 6. It was urged that save as expressly provided by the Act, if any person is aggrieved by an "order" passed by Controller, except the orders specifically excluded by clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 24, an aggrieved party may prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. An order rejecting an application for examination of witnesses is an order within the meaning of clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 24 of the Act. if it is so, such an order is appealable. Even if a person can approach this Court by invoking sub section (5) of section 24 of the Act, when a remedy of an appeal is available to the aggrieved party, this Court may not exercise revisional power. 7. In my opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is well-founded and must be upheld, Section 24(1)(b) makes it clear that an order in the present case is appealable. The Section speaks of order and not final order. 7. In my opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is well-founded and must be upheld, Section 24(1)(b) makes it clear that an order in the present case is appealable. The Section speaks of order and not final order. An order rejecting the application to summon a person as a witness can be said to be an order within the meaning of clause (b) to sub section (1) of Section 24 of the Act and hence it is appealable before the appellate authority to pass an appropriate order staying further proceeding in the matter pending decision and disposal of appeal. If the order is to be read as final order only, prima facie, the provisions of sub section (2) would become nugatory or surplus. Ordinarily, when proceedings are pending before original authority, i.e. rent controller and an order passed by him is challenged by the aggrieved party, a question of entertaining the appeal and exercise of discretion regarding staying of further proceedings before the Rent Controller would arise. In my opinion, therefore, the expression "order" which has not been defined in the Code should not be read as final but even interim order. Since the order is appealable before the appropriate authority, I dispose of the revision petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate forum by invoking Section 24 (1)(b) of the Act. 8. In the instant case, the order was passed by the Rent Controller or, October 17, 2000. Looking to the certified copy, which has been produced in this case, an application for getting certified copy was made on October 20, 2000. It was ready for delivery on October 27, 2000 and the revision was filed on 1, November, £000. Thus, the petitioner had approached this Court within the stipulated period of fifteen days under clause (b) ibid. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate if I grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act if she wants to challenge the order impugned in the present petition. If such an appeal is filed within the stipulated period of fifteen days from today, the appellate authority will entertain the appeal without raising any objection as to limitation. It is further clarified that the petitioner will get set off for the period for which certified copy will be given to her. If such an appeal is filed within the stipulated period of fifteen days from today, the appellate authority will entertain the appeal without raising any objection as to limitation. It is further clarified that the petitioner will get set off for the period for which certified copy will be given to her. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will make an application for certified copy of the order dated October 17, 2000 passed by the Rent Controller within three days from today. If such an application is made, a copy will be immediately supplied by the Copying Agency and the period in getting the certified copy will be given set off to the petitioner. It is also open to the petitioner to make appropriate application for stay of further proceedings. The appellate authority will consider the same and pass an appropriate order on the said application after hearing both the parties. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No. costs.