Gopi Chand vs Doctor Kamwar Pal Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the order of the Kent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant was set aside and the case sent back to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh after allowing the parties to lead evidence.

The only argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority could not set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remand the case for fresh decision. At the most, a report could be sent for from the Rent Controller and then decide the appeal on merits. In support of his contention, reference was made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Raghu Nath Jalota v. Romesh Duggal 1972 (2) R. C. R. 501 and Satya Wati Bhargava v. Pehlad Rai 1984 (2) R. C. R. 26.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. In view of the abovesaid judgments, the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to remand the case after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. At the most, a report could be sent for from the Rent Controller on the additional issue framed by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, this petition succeeds the impugned order is set aside to the extent whereby the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the case was sent back for decision afresh. The learned Appellate Authority shall get the report of the Rent Controller on the issue framed and then decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

The parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 4th June, 1986.