VINOD KUMAR Vs. BHAGWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, challenge has been laid to the order dtd. 25/9/2019 passed by the learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 25- S/13(b) of 2018. The impugned order has primarily been assailed on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. As per petitioner, the learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla had no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the learned Rent Controller under Sec. 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short " the Act").

(2.) The order of eviction was passed in favour of petitioner/landlord and against respondents/tenants by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.II, Shimla, H.P. on 23/8/2018 in Rent Petition No.122-2 of 2015/2013. The eviction of respondents/tenants was ordered from the non residential premises on the ground that petitioner/landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. This order of eviction was challenged before the learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla by respondents/tenants by filing an appeal under Sec. 24 of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, respondents/tenants preferred an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") for leading additional evidence by placing and proving on record a certified copy of relinquishment deed dtd. 9/2/2012 and also a copy of eviction petition, tilted as "Raj Rani versus Neeraj Kumar".

(3.) Learned Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, vide impugned order allowed the application of respondents/tenants under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC and also the appeal preferred by them on merits by order impugned in the instant petition. The operation portion of the impugned order reads as under:-