RAGHU NATH JALOTA Vs. ROMESH DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the appellate authority under S. 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has the jurisdiction to remand the whole case to the Rent Controller for decision afresh is the sole, though meaningful, question which falls for determination in these two civil revision petitions before us on a reference. Directly linked therewith is also the issue of the correctness of the view expressed first by Grover, J., in Civil Revn. No. 641 of l957--Moti Ram v. Ram Sahai, decided on Apri1 29, 1958 (Punj) and its categoric af9rmance by the Division Bench in Krishan Lal Seth v. Shrimati Pritam Kumari, (1961) 63 Pun LR 865.

(2.) It is manifest that the aforesaid question is pristinely legal. Nevertheless the matrix of facts giving rise to the issue does cell for notice. Raghunath Jalota petitioner instituted two separate applications for ejectment under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act)--one against Labhu Ram and Ramesh Duggal respondents jointly and the other against Ramesh Duggal respondent alone with respect to the portions of a godown leased to them. Both these applications first came un before Mr. K. S. Kauldhar, the Rent Controller and he framed issues in each application and evidence was also recorded separately therein. It would appear that later the matter came up before his successor Shri S. S. Tiwana and apparently taking the view that the grounds of ejectment in the two applications were virtually the same except the ground of subletting which was en additional around in the main application he took up both the applications together and discussing the issues therein jointly disposed them of by an exhaustive judgment running into 22 typed pages on the 10th of March, 1975. Thereby he allowed both the ejectment applications and directed the ejectment of the respondents.

(3.) Aggrieved the respondents appealed to the appellate authority under the Rent Restriction Act being the District Judge, Kapurthala, who took the view that the disposal of the two cases, by a single judgment was against the provisions of the Civil P. C. and, therefore, set it aside: He remanded both the cases to the Rent Controller purporting to act under Section 151, Civil P. C., for disposing them through separate judgments by confining himself to the material on the record of each case with the further direction that since evidence in both cases had already been separately led neither party would be allowed to produce any additional evidence.