SOM NATH KAPUR Vs. TILAK RAJ AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tilak Raj and his brother Pishore Lal respondents own house No. 2639/9 in Gali Lahoria, Katra Karam Singh, Amritsar, which is in occupation of Som Nath Kapur petitioner as their tenant. On December 27, 1972, the respondents filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner on various grounds, including that of bonafide requirement. The Rent Controller accepted the application of the respondents, and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide order dated December 10, 1974. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller preferred an appeal. Shri G.S. Chahl, Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal vide order dated August 30, 1975, the last paragraph of which reads as under :-

(2.) The matter again went to the Rent Controller and the parties put in their appearance. The respondents applied under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for making necessary amendment of their application which was opposed by the petitioner. The Rent Controller vide order dated September 26, 1975 allowed the amendment of the application on the lines indicated by the Appellate Authority in its order dated August 30, 1975, which has been reproduced above. The parties were allowed to adduce evidence. The Rent Controller again accepted the ejectment application of the respondents against the petitioner vide order dated November 23, 1976. The petitioner then filed an appeal again this order before the Appellate Authority. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the remand order of the appellate the authority dated August 30, 1975, was non est and all proceedings taken by the Rent Controller in pursuance thereof are liable to be set aside. The appellate authority did hold that the order dated August 30, 1975 was non est in as much as no power of remand of the case to the Rent Controller could be exercised. The order of the Rent Controller was, however, maintained on the grounds that the petitioner did not raise any objection before the Rent Controller about the legality of the remand order and had further acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in as much as evidence was led by him. No argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioner on the point of bonafide requirement of the house by the respondents. The appellate authority, however, discussed the evidence led by the parties on this point, and a firmed the finding of Rent Controller that the respondents required the premises in dispute for their own occupation. The appellate Authority consequently dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated November 30, 1978. It is against this order that the preseal-revision is directed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter 'the Act') no power of remand is given to the appellate authority. The first order of the appellate authority dated August 30, 1975 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dated December 1, 1974, and remanding the case to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh was non-est. All proceedings taken by the Rent Controller in pursuance of this order are bad and liable to be set aside. The order of the appellate authority dated August 30, 1975 begin no order in the eye of law, the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated December 10, 1974, shall be taken to be pending before the Appellate Authority who may be directed to dispose it of afresh according to law.