CHATRU Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chatru Lal has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated December 9, 1974, by which the case was sent back to the Rent Controller for making an enquiry and submitting a report on the points mentioned In the order.

(2.) The first contention raised by Sh. Puran Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned Appellate Authority has grossly erred in allowing the respondent to lead additional evidence. According to the learned counsel, provisions of order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, do not apply, and is such, the landlord-respondent could not legally be allowed to lead additional evidence. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The Appellate Authority has asked for a report in exercise of its powers under section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads as under :-

(3.) It is next contended by Mr. Puran Chand that after the coming into force of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the case could not be sent for making a report to the Rent Controller and that the enquiry should have been made by the Appellate Authority himself. In my view, there is considerable force in this submission of the learned counsel. The learned Subordinate Judge has no powers of a Rent Controller now. The enquiry could be got made through the Rent Controller, under section 15(3) of the Act. As the power of Rent Controller no more vests in the learned Subordinate Judge, the proper course for the Appellate Authority was to make an enquiry himself. In this situation the Appellate Authority was not legally justified in asking the Rent Controller to make an enquiry and to that extent the impugned order cannot be sustained.