BRAHMIN SABHA Vs. BEANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "Landlord") has approached this Court by filing this Revision Petition, assailing the order/judgment dtd. 27/2/2020, passed by Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, in Rent Appeal No.38-S/13(b) of 2013, titled as M/s Beant Singh @ Sons v. Brahmin Sabha, whereby order dtd. 28/3/2013, passed by Rent Controller, Court No.5, Shimla, in Case No.4-2 of 2006, titled as Brahmin Sabha v. M/s Beant Singh and Sons, directing eviction of tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Tenant"), has been set aside and the case has been remanded back to the Rent Controller, with direction to frame fresh issue on the grounds taken by the landlord in the pleadings and to decide the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after hearing them.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the landlord that the Appellate Authority has committed a material illegality, irregularity and perversity in deciding the appeal, whereby it has returned finding that landlord had taken two self-contradictory pleas for eviction of the tenant and Rent Controller had erred in framing two issues, i.e. Issues No.2 and 3, erroneously. Further that there is no provision for wholesale remand of the case in appeal under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Rent Act") and, thus, judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, remanding the case to the Rent Controller, is without jurisdiction and for such jurisdictional error impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.