BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -tenant, under section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, District Solan, dated 20th July, 1970. The facts of the case, so far as the same are relevant for the decision of this petition, may be stated in brief.

(2.) The respondent -landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the present petitioner -tenant from the premises, in the month of March, 1972. The same was, however, dismissed by the Rent Controller, Solan, on 21 -3 -1975. The respondent -landlord preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller before the Appellate Authority, under the Act. The appeal was fixed for arguments on several hearings, but was adjourned for one reason or the other. Certain adjournments were taken for arguments, by the learned counsel for the parties. Ultimately, on 20th July, 1976, an application was moved by the respondent -landlord under Order 23, rule 1 C. P. C. It was submitted in the application that the respondent -landlord desired to withdraw the petition, under section 14 of the Act, with a permission to file a new one on the same cause of action, there being some technical defects, and further that new grounds of eviction had also arisen. It is not disputed that both the parties were represented by their counsel. The learned Appellate Authority recorded the statements of the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the present petitioner -tenant stated that he had no objection if the petition regarding the dispute was allowed to be withdrawn. He, however, stressed that the application be allowed by burdening the present respondent -landlord with costs. Consequently, the Appellate Authority by an order and judgment dated 20th July, 1976 accepted the application of the present respondent -landlord and set aside the judgment of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority also granted permission to the present respondent -landlord, to initiate fresh proceedings on the same cause of action. The respondent -landlord, thereafter filed a fresh petition before the Rent Controller, Solan, on 22 -9 -1978. On 2 -1 -1979 the petition was adjourned to 16 -2 -1979 for the service of the present petitioner. Shri B. S. Chaudhary, Advocate, appeared for the present petitioner -tenant before the Rent Controller. On his objection that the copy of the petition was not received, the same was supplied to him. No written statement was filed on behalf of the present petitioner but instead he chose to prefer this revision petition against the above order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions contained in Order 23 rules 1 and 3 were not at all applicable to the facts of the case and that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of the petition already decided by the Rent Controller, or the appeal pending before it. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit making certain allegations against his Advocate, who consented to the withdrawal of the petition as also the appeal, [t is, however, nor disputed that the present petitioner was represented by the counsel before the Appellate Authority. In this revision petition, we are not concerned with the allegations made against the Advocate. The petitioner, if so advised can take any appropriate action against the Advocate, as may be permissible under the law.