DHARMENDRA SINGH RATHORE Vs. DR. JAYANT RANAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is decided finally at the admission stage. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 15.12.2011, passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court), whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal being No. 26/2010 preferred by the respondent -applicant and set -aside the judgment and order dated 27.1.2010, passed by the Rent Tribunal in Petition No. 658/2007 and remanded the case to the Rent Tribunal for deciding the suit afresh after giving finding on the Issue No. 1, framed by the Tribunal.

(2.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Daga for the appellant that the Appellate Court should not have remanded the case, more particularly when the Trial Court had already decided the Issue No. 1 on merits, considering the evidence on record. He also submitted that the Appellate Court having already given its finding in the impugned order that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid, should have decided the Appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the Trial Court. The learned counsel Mr. Arif Madnani for the respondent has fairly conceded that the Appellate Court has committed an error in remanding the case to the Trial Court for deciding the Issue No.1, which has already been decided by the Trial Court earlier while deciding the petition. He submitted that he has no objection if the impugned order is set -aside and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it transpires that the Appellate Tribunal has remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the Issue No. 1 afresh, though the Trial Court had already given its finding on merits while deciding the petition being No. 658/07. As such, there was no need or justification for the Appellate Court to remand the case. Since the learned counsel for the respondent also has no objection, the impugned order deserves to be set -aside by allowing the appeal. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the Appeal No. 26/2010, is set -aside and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.