GOVINDASWAMY Vs. PARASURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit in this revision petition which is directed against an order of the appellate authority, calling for findings from the rent controller, after setting aside an order passed by him in the Rent Control Original Petition, allowing the same on a preliminary issue.

(2.) THE petition for eviction was filed under S. 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(iii). One of the contentions raised by the petitioners herein was that the property was purchased benami in the name of the respondent by the first petitioner and the petition for eviction was not maintainable. When the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, was passed, an application was taken out by the respondent on the footing that the plea of benami was not available to the petitioners herein in view of the provisions of the said Act and the petition for eviction should be allowed. Accepting the said contention, put forward by the respondent, the rent controller straightway allowed the petition for eviction, without considering any of the issues which arose for consideration.

(3.) THE contention that the petitioners would lose their right of appeal because of the procedure adopted by the appellate authority is without any substance. When the appellate authority has called for findings from the rent controller, it would only mean that the petitioners would have the opportunity to adduce evidence before the rent controller and after hearing the parties, the rent controller would submit his findings to the appellate authority. THEreafter, the appellate authority will consider the objections, if any, of the parties to the said findings and then only pass orders in the appeal. This would really in effect, mean that the petitioners would be able to exercise their right of appeal against the findings of the rent controller without paying any court fee. In other words, the petitioners would be in an advantageous position than when remand is ordered by the appelate authority.