UNIVERSAL OXYGEN COMPANY Vs. A P HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has taken on lease the premises bearing Shop No 18 situated at Barkatpura for a commercial purpose from the Housing Board. A complaint has been laid against the petitioner that he was using the buildings causing damage to the neighbouring owners, the details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this case to adumbrate. The competent authority has issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Then an enquiry was made. The competent authority found that the petitioner has contravened condition 8(a). As a result an order of eviction was passed. On appeal the Chief Judge City Civil Court by his Judgment dated October 17, 1985 has confirmed it. Thus this Writ Petition.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that condition 8(a) should be applied when there is a breach of any of the terms of the rental deed. It is one of the conditions of breach and if there is any such breach, he is liable to evict the shop with one month's notice. The finding in the impugned order is a vague finding the details of which are not given and no finding has been recorded by the competent authority. Though the appellate court has gone into. it is not a finding based on material after giving reasonable opportunity. Accordingly, there is manifest error in the fact of the record.

(3.) I find force in this contention. The appellate authority has clearly stated that no issues have been framed. An enquiry has got to be made by the competent authority (which is in the nature of a civil proceeding before the competent court but the power has been given under the statute to the competent authority without delegating the power to the civil Court) going into the allegations after framing necessary issues and giving reasonable opportunity and then record a finding. Against that there is a right of appeal provided and the appellate authority will go into that finding and then record its own finding after recording the evidence of any afresh, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the finding of the competent authority. Against the appellate Order, again a right of review is provided under Article 226 of the Constitution. The competent authority has to necessarily frame issues, record reasons and a finding therein and then an enquiry of eviction can be passed on this fact finding. In this case, that procedure has not been followed. Unfortunately the appellate authority has not adverted to the point as regards the procedure to be followed by the competent authority. The appellate authority has also gone into the matter without framing any specific point, Thus there is manifest and clear error committed by both the authorities. The Order is accordingly set aside. Sri Janardhan Rao the learned counsel has requested to remit the matter to the appellate authority so that the appellate authority can record the evidence. It is desirable that the primary authority should record the evidence where the parties can have a right of hearing. Against that there is a right of appeal. The appellate authority can go into the matter afresh. If the matter is remitted to the appellate authority the parties will be deprived of their right. Accordingly 1 find that it is just and proper to remit the matter to the primary authority for framing appropriate issues and give opportunity to both the parties and then pass appropriate orders as per Law. The matter is accordingly remitted to the primary authority.