ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SOOD SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case has been called out twice. Learned counsel representing the respondent did not enter appearance.

(2.) The petitioner herein is a tenant in the premises owned by the respondent. The respondent filed an eviction petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner. The same was dismissed by the Rent Controller. In first appeal, the Appellate Authority has remanded the case back to the Rent Controller to decide the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence. Challenging the correctness of the aforesaid order, this revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel representing the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment passed in Raghunath Jalota vs. Romesh Duggal and another AIR 1980 (Punjab) 188 to contend that the Appellate Authority constituted under the East Urban Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has no power to remand the case to the Rent Controller. While referring to para 23 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as under, the learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is against the law interpreted by the Division Bench:-

(3.) This Court has considered the said submission. Though, it has been found that the Rent Controller while dismissing the petition primarily dismissed the case on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in dispute, however, in view of the binding precedent laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is left with no other choice but for to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 4/4/2018. The Appellate Authority is requested to either decide the appeal while permitting the parties to lead further evidence or may seek a report from the Rent Controller on the particular issue.