JUPITOR TRADERS Vs. A T SANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein filed R. C. O. P. No. 3336 of 1984 for fixation of fair rent. In the original petition, M/s. Jupitor Traders, a partnership firm was the only respondent. THE Rent Controller by order dated 27. 2. 1986 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,333 per mensem. Both parties were aggrieved by that order. THE tenant filed R. C. A. No. 300 of 1986 and the landlords filed R. C. A. No. 371 of 1986 and when the appeals were pending, the landlords filed an application in M. P. No. 1255 of 1986 for impleading the partners of M/s. Jupitor Traders as parties to the appeal. That application was made because of the ruling of the Supreme Court in M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikharchand, (1984)4 S. C. C. 343: A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 1570, in which the Apex court held that an application for eviction would not be maintainable against a firm in the firm's name, as the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control order of the Central provinces. THE Supreme Court however had pointed out in that judgment that the non-joinder of the partners by itself would not result in the dismissal of the application filed by the landlord, as it would be merely a case of misdescription and it could be corrected at any stage of the proceedings. THE court observed that there can be no doubt that the partners of the firm were before the court, though in a wrong name.

(2.) THE application was ordered by the appellate authority on 31. 3. 1987 and the partners of the firm who are petitioners 2 to 5 herein, were impleaded in the appeals. THE appeals were heard in 1989. THE appellate authority passed a common order on 31. 10. 1989. It is a curious order which cannot be fitted with any description known to law. THE first sentence of the order reads that the appeals were allowed. THEn, a direction to the landlords is given to implead the partners of the tenant firm as parties to the original petition in the court of the Rent Controller and amend the cause title accordingly. THEn, it is stated that the Rent Controller shall take into account the pleadings and evidence of such partners and pass a fresh order and forward the same within a period of two months to the appellate authority. A time limit was fixed for the amendment of the original petition by the landlords. Both the parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 16. 11. 1989. THEy were directed to co-operate with the Rent Controller to complete the matter at an early date.

(3.) THE contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate authority has no power of review, as there is no specific provision in Tamil Nadu Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act empowering the appellate authority to grant a review. It is also contended that the appellate authority being a statutory tribunal has no inherent power of review and the order which is sought to be revised, it sustainable in law, inasmuch as it has chosen to review the earlier order dated 31. 10. 1989 allowing the appeals and remanding the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the appellate authority dated 31. 10. 1989 was undoubtedly an order of remand and if the landlords were aggrieved thereby, they ought to have challenged the same by a revision in this Court and they have no right to file a petition for review before the appellate authority itself.