URMILA DEVI Vs. DAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord is in revision before this court against the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the order of provisional assessment of rent dated 31.1.2012 as well as subsequent order of ejectment dated 15.2.2012 passed by the Rent Controller were set aside vide impugned order dated 19.5.2012 and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller. The petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') had been filed by the landlord-petitioner against the respondent for eviction claiming arrears of rent for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.4.2011 as well as on the ground of personal necessity of the premises in dispute. The Rent Controller had assessed provisional rent due against the respondent on 31.1.2012. On account of non-payment of rent by the respondent within 15 days, as fixed by the Rent Controller, ejectment order was passed on 15.2.2012. The tenant filed appeal against the orders dated 31.1.2012 and 15.2.2012 before the Appellate Authority, who set aside the aforesaid orders and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller with the direction to pass fresh order of provisional assessment of rent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally and with material irregularities in exercise of its jurisdiction while not appreciating the law. It was submitted that a Division Bench of this court has held that it is bounden duty of the tenant to deposit the provisional rent determined by the Rent Controller, otherwise it will entail ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute. Further, it was argued that if a tenant is dissatisfied with the interim order passed by the Rent Controller, he has an opportunity to challenge the same before the higher forum well within time.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Smt. Sewati Devi v. Tulsi Ram, 1990 1 RCR(Rent) 602; Smt. Satya Wati Jain v. Shiv Kant Ghai and others, 1992 2 RCR(Rent) 461; Hari Ram v. Firm Ram Parkash Shanti Lal, 1992 1 RCR(Rent) 377and Banarsi Dass v. Smt. Jeeto, 1998 1 RCR(Rent) 288, submitted that the Appellate Authority has no power to remand the case for decision afresh. The Appellate Authority can only decide the appeal after making such further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Rent Controller and appeal should have remained pending before the Appellate Authority till such time the enquiry was concluded.