BRAHAM DASS Vs. SATYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioners being landlords of the premises in dispute filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), for eviction of the respondents. The learned Rent Controller (4), Shimla by an order dated 12.7.1993 allowed the Eviction Petition and directed the respondents to hand over the possession of the premises in dispute within two months from the date of the said order. It may be mentioned here that the eviction order was passed ex parte against the respondents i.e. tenants, as they absented themselves from the proceedings on the date fixed for their evidence and were, therefore, proceeded ex parte.

(2.) AGAINST the said order of eviction, the respondents filed two separate appeals i.e. one by Satya Wati and the other by Dharam Chand. This appeal was heard and decided by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla, by an order dated 10.6.1996, thereby the rent suit of the petitioners was remanded to the Rent Controller for decision afresh in accordance with law. As is clear from the reasons and findings given in the impugned order of the learned Appellate Authority, the rent suit was remanded solely on the ground that the dispute between the parties was not decided on merits inasmuch as the respondents were deprived of the opportunity of proving their claim. It was also observed therein that the rules of procedure are not to be used for penalizing the parties for their mistakes and negligence, hence the present revision petition.

(3.) IT is clear from the above provisions that the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act has no power to remand a case to the Rent Controller. All that it can do is that, if deemed necessary, it can decide the appeal after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that this power includes the power to remand the case to the Rent Controller.