JEET ENTERPRISES Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision and has been directed against the order dated 7.4.1981 passed by the Additional Appellate Authority, Chandigarh who dismissed the appeal of M/s. Jeet Enterprises, filed under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

(3.) THE grouse of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that in the interim order the Appellate Authority stated that he will dispose of the two applications i.e. one under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and the second under Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, along with the appeal but he has disposed of only one application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and by not disposing the application under Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner who could convince the Appellate Authority that the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist between the parties. She further argued that the Appellate Authority has mainly relied upon a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as 1980 PLR 441 Amritsagar Kashyap v. Chief Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh, and this judgment has been overruled by the Hon'ble High Court in a case reported as AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 301 (Full Bench), Ram Puri Chandigarh v. Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh and others. It was further argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no dispute between the parties that the site in question has already been resumed by Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 20.5.1975 and since then the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist between the parties.