SHIV RAJ SABLOK Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition directs challenge against order dtd. 22/12/2017 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala whereby appeal against order dtd. 6/5/2017 qua assessment of provisional rent by the Rent Controller, Ambala was allowed, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Rent Controller with a direction to pass a fresh order for provisional assessment of rent by taking into account documents discussed in the order impugned.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order impugned remitting the case for assessment of provisional rent afresh is beyond jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain. It is further argued that the Appellate Authority can only order a fresh enquiry either by the Rent Controller or at its own level for deciding the case but can not remit the matter to the Rent Controller for decision of the matter afresh as has been done in the present case. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court Raghu Nath Jalota vs. Romesh Duggal and another 1979(2) RCR(Rent) 501 and Single Bench judgment of this Court Smt. Urmila Devi vs. Davinder Singh 2014(1) RCR(Rent) 242.

(3.) The Division Bench of this Court in Raghu Natha Jalota's case (supra) has held that in Sec. 15(3), the word 'remand' is conspicuous by its absence and there is not the least reference of sending the case back to the trial court for a fresh determination thereof. It appears that once the framer of the statute were well aware of the appellate powers, so well known and fully spelt out in the Code of Civil Procedure, couching of sub Sec. 3 in the terms in which it has not been laid, cannot have any other meaning except that either expressly or in any case impliedly the intent of the legislature was to exclude the power of remand and decision afresh as laid down in Rule 24 of Order 41 CPC.