MOHINDER PAL Vs. ANAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been made under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. 1949 against the order of the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's application purporting to be made tinder section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

(2.) On Sept. 4, 1964 the respondent applied under section 11(3) (a)(i) of the aforesaid Act to the Controller for an order directing the petitioner to put him in possession of a residential building which he claimed he required for his own occupation The application was allowed by Controller by an order dated Sept. 27, 1966 on the finding that the claim of the landlord was genuine. Against the order of ejectment the petitioner appealed, and by an order dated Sept., 26, 1968, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in the view that the grounds for ejectment set out in section 13(3)(a)(i) had not been pleaded by the tenant. Against the appellate order, the respondent applied in revision to this Court under section 15(5) and Parkash Narain. J. allowed the revision application, holding that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 13(3)(a)(i) had to be established by the landlord before an order could be made for ejectment of the tenant, and that as only the conditions set out in clauses (a) and (b) had been considered and not the conditions mentioned in clause (c), it was necessary to remand the case for decision on the question whether that condition was satisfied. He set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remanded the case to it for recording a finding on that point after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. Upon remand, the Appellate Authority commenced proceedings for trying the question whether the condition set out in clause (c) of section 13(3)(a)(i) was satisfied. The petitioner applied to the Appellate Authority pointing out that as there was no plea in the respondent's application under section 13(3)(a)(i) on the basis of which the question fell to be tried, the Appellate Authority could not proceed with the matter. The application was rejected on June 25, 1971. Against that order the petitioner now applies in revision. It is clear that after Parkash Narain, J had framed the issue which he considered should be tried and remanded the case for that purpose, the Appellate Authority could do nothing but to proceed in conformity with the remand order and try that issue. Whether or not the plea had been taken by the respondent in his application under sections 13(3)(a)(i) and therefore whether the issue arose was a matter to he urged before Parkash Narain, J. After the order of remand, it was not for the Appellate Authority to examine whether the issue arose at all on the existing pleadings. To permit the Appellate Authority to do would be to enable it to question the order of remand. That is an authority inferior to the High Court, it had no power to do so. It was bound to give effect to the order of remand and to act in conformity with it.

(3.) I am not satisfied that the order of the Appellate Authority calls for interference by this Court under section 15(5) of the Act. The petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.