BHAGWAN DAS GUPTA Vs. MADHU VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India for setting aside the Judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, shahjahanpur by which SCC Revision No. 3 of 2006 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Judge Small Cause Courts to decide it afresh.

(2.) SCC Suit No. 3 of 2000 had been filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute. One point that arose for consideration was whether the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were applicable to the building in dispute. The Judge Small Cause Courts held that the Act was applicable and the suit was dismissed. The tenant filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The Revisional Court while deciding the first point for determination recorded a specific finding of fact that the Act was not applicable to the building in dispute. The second point for determination was whether the rate of rent was Rs. 425/- and whether the tenant had not been paid rent from 16th September, 1999 to 15th December, 1999 as a result of which he was liable for eviction. This point was also decided in favour of the landlord. However, after recording all these specific findings, the Revisional Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the suit afresh in the light of the directions issued by it.

(3.) SRI Ramendra Asthana learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by means of the remand order, the Revisional Court had virtually decided the case and the remand order is nothing but an "eye wash' and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Piarey v. 1st Additional District Judge, Rampur and others, 1999 37 ALR 186.