SARDAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. LACHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the order of Appellate Authority, Sonepat, whereby the order of Rent Controller has been set aside and case remanded to Rent Controller for a fresh decision after permitting the party to plead necessary ingredients in terms of Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as well as granting fresh opportunity to both the parties to file amended petition, written statement and evidence that may be led in support of their respective contentions.

(2.) The sole submission of the learned Counsel is that the appellate authority under Sec. 15 (iv) of the Haryana Rent Control and Eviction Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has no jurisdiction to remand the case. At the most, a report could be sent for from the Rent Controller and appeal could be decided on merits in accordance with law. For this proposition, counsel relied upon judgments reported as Krishan Lal Seth v/s. Pritam Kumari, (1961) 63 P.L.R. 865 and another judgment Harbans Lal v/s. Sham Dass : (1991) 99 P.L.R. 453.

(3.) In view of settled position of law, the appellate authority had no power to set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remand such an application to him for retrial and redecision. I accordingly accept the revision -petition and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority will, however, be at liberty to send for a report from the Rent Controller on the issues mentioned in the impugned order and after the receipt of such a report, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Sonepat, on 18.8.1992.