NIRMALA BEN PATEL Vs. INDERSINGH BAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order of 'remand passed by the appellate authority under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 7 (4) of the Orissa House rent Control Act for eviction of opposite party No. 1 from a house alleging that she required the same for her personal occupation. Opposite party No. 1 admitted that he was a monthly tenant under the petitioner in respect of the house in question, but contended that the petitioner did not require the house bona fide for her personal occupation. The case was posted to 19-10-74 for hearing, On that day opposite party No. 1 applied for adjournment which was rejected by the learned House Rent Controller and an order of eviction was passed ex parte. Opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Chief judicial Magistrate (opposite party No. 2) and prayed for remanding the case to the House Rent Controller for giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. After hearing the parties the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur came to the findings that though the case was not covered by the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code yet in exercise of his inherent powers he could remand the case for fresh disposal. Upon such finding he remanded the case to the House Rent Controller for fresh disposal.

(3.) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that Section 13 of the Orissa House rent Control Act does not confer on the appellate authority all the powers under the Civil Procedure Code and that the order of remand is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that though there is no specific provision in the Act enabling the appellate authority to remand the case for fresh disposal yet the appellate authority has inherent power to remand a case for fresh disposal in cases not falling strictly within the provisions of the Act.