JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.:—The petitioner is the landlord while respondent is the tenant. The parties are hereinafter referred to accordingly. 2. The tenanted premises known as "Glory Hotel" were let out to the tenant for non-residential purposes in the year 1975 by the landlord on a monthly rental of Rs. 375. 3. The landlord on 18.12.1997 approached the learned Rent Controller,, Dalhousie, by way of an application under Section 10, H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short: the Rent; Act) praying for increase in rent on the ground that since after the inception of tenancy there l>as been manifold increase in the Municipal taxes in respect of the tenanted premises. It was averred that the Municipal tax in respect of the tenanted premises which was Rs. 400 per annum has since been increased to Rs. 18090 per annum. 4. The tenant while resisting the petition denied her liability to pay the increased rent. It was pleaded that the municipal taxes payable in respect of the tenanted premises were increased at the instance of the landlord himself. 5. The learned Rent Controller, upon consideration of the material placed before him vide order dated 15.11.1999 allowed the increase in rent from Rs. 375 per month to Rs. 575 per month. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.1999 of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant went up in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Chamba, under Section 24(1 )(b) of the Rent Act. Cross-objections were preferred by the landlord in such appeal. 7. The learned Appellate Authority on 31.8.2000 allowed the appeal of the tenant and set aside the order dated 15.11.1999 of the learned Rent Controller increasing the rent from 375 per month to Rs. 575 per month. The cross-objections preferred by the landlord were dismissed. Hence the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act by the landlord. 8. A contention was raised by the landlord that an order passed by the learned Rent Controller under Section 10 of the Rent Act was not appealable under Section 24 of the Rent Act and as such the impugned order of the learned Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of the tenant is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. 9. This Court in Shakuntla Devi (Snit.) v. Santosh (Smt.) and others, 2002 (1) Curr. LJ. 9. This Court in Shakuntla Devi (Snit.) v. Santosh (Smt.) and others, 2002 (1) Curr. LJ. (HP) 338, while dealing with the scope of Section 24(i)(b) of the Rent Act has held that an appeal would lie only against an order passed by the Rent Controller under Sections 4, 11, 13 and 14 of the Rent Act and against no other order. 10. As stated above, the order dated 15.11.1999 was passed by the learned Rent Controller under Section 10 of the Rent Act. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in Smt. Shakuntla Devis case (supra), such an order was not appealable. The learned Appellate Authority as such has erred in entertaining and allowing the appeal. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 11. As a result, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.8.2000 of the learned Appellate Authority is set-aside. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.