KARTAR SINGH Vs. KULWANT RAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kartar Singh filed an application for eviction of Kulwant Rai, tenant, on the ground of sub letting to Baldev alias Baldum as also on the ground of that the shop was lying locked for six months. Before the Rent Controller, tenant did not lead any evidence inspite of two opportunities. On the basis of uncontroverted oral evidence produced by the landlord, order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller. The tenant went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that in the interest of justice and on the peculiar facts of this case, two opportunities were not enough and at least one more opportunity should have been granted to the tenant to lead evidence. After recording this finding, he proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to decided the ejectment application afresh after allowing one more opportunity to the tenant to lead evidence, on payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. The landlord has come to this Court to challenge the aforesaid order.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Rent Controller in view of two Division Bench judgments of this Court in (1) Raghu Nath Jalota v. Romesh Duggal and another, 1979 2 RCR(Civ) 501, and (2) Shri Krishan Lal Seth v. Shrimati Pritam Kumari,1961 PunLR 865. The Division Bench Judgment in Shri Krishan Lal Seth's case has held the field for two decades and the same view has been reiterated in Raghu Nath Jalota's case . There are a large number of other Single Bench decision of this Court which have been reported in which it is held that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction. It is pity that the counsel for the landlord did not bring any decided case on this matter to the notice for the Appellate Authority. I am also at pains to notice that even the learned Appellate Authority was not aware of this settled principle of law. Accordingly, it is held that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to remand the case and the order of remand is hereby set aside.

(3.) However, I am in agreement with the Appellate Authority that it was a fit case in which one more opportunity should have been granted to the tenant to lead evidence. A reading of the order of the Rent Controller shows that he accepted the evidence of the landlord on both the grounds of ejectment by saying that the same was uncontroverted. The opportunity to the tenant on payment of Rs. 100/- would not only meet the ends of justice, but will also compensate the landlord. Accordingly, this part of the order of the Appellate Authority is sustained.