HANS RAJ Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hans Raj alias Bilias alias Hem Raj, respondent-petitioner, has filed this Civil Revision Application No. 126 of 1976 against the order, dated 2-1-1976, of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot (Shri Dev Raj Saini), by which that Authority allowed the proposed amendment (to be made in the petition by the petitioner-respondents) on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs and also accepted the appeal, and setting aside the impugned order sent the case back for retrial (to the Rent Controller, Gidderbaha). By that order, the parties were also) directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Gidderbaha, on 13-1-1916.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Application in brief are that Sheela Devi and Shanti Devi filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Hans Raj for seeking his ejectment from the house; situated in Gidderbaha on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller found that Shanti Devi required the house for her use and for use of her family member. An order of ejectment was accordingly, passed on 14-6-1974, by the Rent Controller, Gidderbaha, (Shri Dina Nath) Hans Raj, being aggrieved by that order, filed an appeal against the same in the Court of the Appellate Authority (District Judge) Faridkot. He petitioner-respondent made an application before that Authority for amendment of the main petition so as to take up all the three pleas as mentioned in Section 13 (3) (a) (1) of the Act. The learned counsel for Hans Raj, respondent appellant, opposed the same. However, the appellate authority, vide its impugned order, dated 2-1-1976, allowed the proposed amendment of payment of Rs. 20/- as costs it further accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order (of the Rent Controller) and sent the case back for retrial after the proposed amendment was allowed, subject to payment of costs as aforesaid. Vide the same order, the Appellate Authority directed the parties to appear before the Rent Con. troller at Gidderbaha on 13-1-1976. Feeling aggrieved by that order of the Appellate Authority, Hans Raj, respondent-petitioner, has filed this revision application.

(3.) The counsel for both the parties have submitted that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 2-1-1976 in so far as it allows the petitioner-respondents, Sheela Devi and Shanti Devi to amend their petition on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs, is correct, but in so far as it directs that the appeal is accepted and the impugned order (of the Rent Controller) is set aside and the case is sent back for retrial after the proposed amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs as aforesaid and further directs the parties to appear before the Rent Controller at Gidderbaha on 13-1-1976, the same is an illegal order, and as such, is liable to be set aside to that extent. They have further submitted that since the appellate authority had allowed the petitioner respondents to amend their petition so as to raise all the three pleas as mentioned above, it in view of the provisions of Section 15 (3) of the Act, should have nude an enquiry into those mattes itself or at the most it could halve got it done from the Rent Controller before deciding the appeal and should not have remanded the case for retrial to the Rent Controller. In my opinion, the above submissions made by the counsel for the parties are quite correct and in order. Section 15 (3) of the Act reads as under :