R MANI Vs. SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has no merits. It is directed against an order of the Appellate Authority remitting the matter before him back to the Rent Controller for appropriate disposal in accordance with law.

(2.) THE short facts are these:

(3.) THIS revision is against the order of the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority has no power of remand and he refers to Kuttappa Nair v. Shahul Hameed, (1973)2 M.L.J. 55. That Judgment will not apply to the present case as in this case, the Rent Controller has not disposed of the application before him. The Rent Controller has simply closed it. That is not disposal within the meaning of law. Generally the expression "closed" is used by executing courts only. THIS court has on several occasions pointed out that such closure will not put an end to the petition and it is only a disposal for statistical purposes. In Periannan Chettiar v. Lakshmanan Chettiar, 68 M.L.J. 265(D.B.), Jackson, J. observed as follows: