H S BEDI Vs. DHANNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition praying for certificates under Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Clause (1) of Art, 133 of the Constitution.

(2.) The premises described as Shop No. 50. The Mall. Simla, consist partly of residential accommodation and partly of commercial accommodation. The en-tire premises were let out by the first Respondent Dhanni Devi to the second Respondent Krishan Kumar, and it appears that thereafter Krishan Kumar occupied the commercial portion of the accommodation only and sub-let the residential portion to the petitioner. An application was made by Dhanni Devi for the ejectment of the petitioner and Krishan Kumar on the ground that Krishan Kumar had sub-let the accommodation to the petitioner without her permission. The application was reject-ed on the finding that the sub-letting had been effected with her permission. Thereafter an application was made by Dhanni Devi under Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. She claimed possession of the residential portion of the accommodation on the ground that she required it for her own occupation. A question arose whether such an application would lie inasmuch as the landlady was thereby attempting to split the tenancy. The Rent Controller answered that question in the negative, and the Appellate Authority endorsed his view. Dhanni Devi applied in revision under Section 15 (5) of the Act to this Court and by its judgment dated August 6, 1971. a Division Bench reversed the decision of the inferior authorities and held that the application was maintainable even though it was in respect of the residential por-tion of the accommodation only. The learned Judges remanded the case to the Controller for determining whether the requirements of Dhanni Devi were genuine and the conditions of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act were satisfied. The petitioner now prays for the certificates mentioned above.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for Dhanni Devi. It is urged that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the judgment of this Court does not amount to a "Judgment, decree or final order" within the meaning of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution, It is contended that the decision of this Court has merely dis- posed of one of the issues which arises in the case and has left the dispute between the parties on the merits unresolved and that it cannot be said that the rights of the parties have been adjudicated by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the preliminary objection should prevail.