KRISHAN LAL SETH Vs. PRITAM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord, Pritam Kumari, made an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949), for eviction of the tenant, Krishan Lal Seth, from her house rented to him on the grounds (1) of non -payment of arrears of rent, (2) of the tenant having himself purchased residential property in the very Model Town of Sonepat where the house in dispute is situate, and (3) of requirement of the house for her own use and residence.

(2.) THE first two grounds are no longer material. The tenant paid the arrears according to law and the authorities below have found that the second ground is not a ground for eviction under the Act. On the third ground the Rent Controller threw out the application of the landlord on the simple ground that she has not in her application pleaded that on the date of the application she was not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and she had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act, in the said urban area. On appeal the appellate authority has characterised the order of the Rent Controller as perverse and illogical saying that the application of the landlord could not be thrown out on the technical ground on which it has been dismissed in so far as the third ground is concerned because for such omission her application could not possibly be dismissed. The appellate authority has further pointed out that the parties were not at issue on the point and this thus could not be the basis of the dismissal of the application of the landlord. It has set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the case for retrial on the question whether the landlord needs the premises for her own occupation? The order of the appellate authority is of November 4, 1960. This is a revision application against that order by the tenant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Applicant very correctly points out that when the appellate authority is somehow or other dissatisfied with the trial of an application for eviction, it can make a further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, but its power being such, it is obvious that it has no power to remand the application for redecision by the Rent Controller. On plain reading of the subjection the argument is unanswerable and it is obvious that the appellate authority must proceed according to this Sub -section and it has no power to set aside an order of the Rent Controller and remand such an application to him for retrial and redecision. Similar view has been taken by Grover, J., in Civil Revision No. 641 of 1957, decided on April 29, 1958. So the order of the appellate authority cannot be maintained.