A P SANWARIA Vs. SUDARSHAN CHOPRA MS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Heard counsel on both sides. Against the order passed by the Rent Controller ordering eviction, the present petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinaftercalled "the Act") which was delayed by about 12 days. Section 15 of the Act provides as under:

(3.) Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the High court had examined the matter on merit and had come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Rent Controller was unassailable. Since the appellate authority had not gone into the merits of the matter, the High court should have refrained from doing so. The appellate authority being the fact-finding authority ought to have been allowed to assess the evidence by going into the merits of the matter. Ordinarily, the revisional court does not reassess the facts. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the instant case the High court should have refrained from going into the merits of the matter since the appellate authority had not examined the merits. The appellate authority will do so on remand uninfluenced by the High court order.