HARBANS LAL Vs. SHAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision Petition is directed against the order of the appellate Authority Gurdaspur dated April 22, 1989, whereby the order of the Kent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was set aside and the case was remanded for recording findings on issues Nos. 3, 4, 6,7 and 8 on the evidence already on record, after hearing the learned course! for the parties.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to remand the case after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. At the most a report could be sent for from the Rent Controller and then the appeal could be decided on merits in accordance with law. In support of the contention reliance was placed on Krishan Lal Seth v. Pritam Kumari, (1961) 63 P. L. R. 685, wherein it has been held that when the appellant authority it is somehow or other dissatisfied with the trial of an application for eviction of the tenant, it can make a further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Rent Controller, but it has no power to set aside an order of the Kent Controller and remand such an application to him for retrial and redecision.

(3.) IN view of the said judgment of this Court, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to remand the case after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed The order of the appellate authority setting aside the order of the Rent Controller is held to be without jurisdiction. The revision petition succeeds only to this extent. The appellate authority will be at liberty to send for a report from the Rent Controller on the issues mentioned in the impugned order. After the receipt of the said report, the appellate authority will decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law The parties have been directed to appear before the appellatre authority on February, 21, 1991.