BRIJMOHANLAL Vs. RAJALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition must be allowed on the short ground that the appellate authority under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act of 1954 has no jurisdiction to remand a case for fresh decision by the Controller on merits. Under Section 25 (b) the jurisdiction is to order further enquiry, but it is either personally or through the Controller. This means that an appeal should be pending before the appellate authority. The order of remand in this case, therefore directing further enquiry and then a decision on merits, is incorrect.

(2.) Apart from it, the Judgment by the appellate Court is otherwise legal incorrect. The Judge has held that a rent note executed after the Rent Controller's order had come into force becomes ineffective due to the expiry of the period in the rent note and thereafter the relation of the parties becomes that of strangers. That view is obviously incorrect. The effect of the Rent Control Order or of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act of 1954 is that once-the relationship of landlord and tenant is created, it continues till grounds contained in the enactment for evicting the tenant are made out. In other words the contractual tenancy because of the enactment, becomes statutory. Therefore, after the lapse of four years the respondent in the case has not become a trespasser.

(3.) The revision petition is therefore, allowed and the appellate Court can eigther take evidence itself, or get it done by the Controller should it consider further evidence necessary. The landlord can also show that he is entitled to possession due to denial of his title in reply to his notice to vacate. There is also a second rent note which he may prove, but the failure to prove the second note would not be fatal. In no circumstances most the case be remanded as if it were a regular suit. The appellate Court is to proceed accordingly, and the costs will abide the final result of the case. Revision allowed.