AJAIB SINGH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order of the appellate authority remanding the case to the Rent Controller and for giving an opportunity to the landlord to give evidence as well to the tenant to join issue on the point of contest and dispose of the rent petition. The order of remand came in a situation where the landlord had not availed several opportunities granted to him to tender his evidence before the Rent Controller. The evidence was, therefore, closed and the Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the petition. In appeal by the landlord, the appellate authority set aside the order and afforded opportunities to both the parties to give evidence. It is against this order that the tenant has come in Revision before this court.

(2.) Before the arguments got underway, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent points out that after remand the landlord witnesses were examined and his witnesses were also examined. Consequently, there is no need for consideration of the case on merit.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, stated that passing of the final order has been stayed and was made to abide by the final decision. The counsel would argue that a Division Bench of this court has in Raghu Nath Jalota Versus Romesh Duggal and another, 1980 AIR(P&H) 188 held that an appellate authority exercising the jurisdiction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 does not have a power to remand under Order 41 Rule 23 or Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code and it can only make any further inquiry itself or call for report from the Rent Controller. The power exercised by the appellate authority, therefore, according to the landlord's counsel, was not competent at all.