SHASHI BHUSHAN GUPTA Vs. TARA CHAND CHANDHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his own occupation. In the trial Court, the following three issues were framed :-

(2.) On all the three issues, the finding was against the landlord and the petition for eviction was dismissed. In the appeal, during the course of arguments an abjection was raised by the tenant that the landlord did not allege the three ingredients which he was expected to allege in an application for ejectment. To meet that argument after the arguments were closed, the landlord filed an application for amendment of the petition to enable him to raise the necessary pleas. The Appellate Authority accepted the amendment and remanded the case back to the Rent Controller for a finding. In this revision, the learned counsel for the tenant argues that the Appellate Authority ought not have done so without recording a finding on the issues in respect of which the trial Court had found in favour of the tenant. There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial Court had categorically recorded in finding that the premises was not residential. Without upsetting that finding, there was no point in sending the case to the trial Court. The question whether the petitioner bona fide required the building for his residence, is linked up with the question whether the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned. There may be some justification for the remand in regard to this issue since it is linked up with the amendment which was allowed, but in regard to this, issue, the Appellate Court ought to have recorded a finding. If the finding was in favour of the tenant, there was no need for any remand. The question of remand would arise only if the finding was against the tenant. In the circumstances I set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and direct the Appellate Authority to re-hear the appeal in the light of my observations. There is no order as to costs.

(3.) The parties will appear before the Appellate Authority on 20th December, 1976. Revision accepted.