Kamalam, Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar vs City Book Center

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore dated 10.7.2002 made in R.C.A.No.35 of 2000 remanding the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal, the petitioners-landlord have filed C.R.P.No.1301 of 2002.

Against the very same common order of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.43 of 2000, the same parties have preferred other C.R.P. Viz., C.R.P.No.1302 of 2002.

The respondents in both the revisions entered caveat through counsel.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

In view of the order to be passed in these revisions I am of the view that it is unnecessary to refer the factual matrix as alleged by both the parties. It is seen that aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller in RCOP.No.136 of 1997 both the parties to the proceedings viz., land lords and tenant preferred R.C.A.Nos.35 and 43 of 2000 before the Appellate Authority questioning the fixation of fair rent. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller remanded the same to the file of the Rent Controller with a direction to reconsider the R.C.O.Ps after appointing the Engineer from the Public Works Department as Commissioner for inspection and report of the building in question. It is not seriously disputed that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order of remand. This question has been considered by a Division bench of this Court in the case of SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, EAST TANJAVUR VS. K.R.M.S.CHOCKALINGAM CHETTIAR 1967 II MLJ 412 and in the case of P.NARASIMHAN (DIED) AND OTHERS VS. NARAYANA CHETTY AND OTHERS 1982 TLNJ 462, wherein the learned Judges have held that the Appellate authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order of remand. They further held that if any additional particulars are necessary, it is open to the Appellate Authority to call for a finding from the Rent Controller on that aspect or the Appellate Authority can dispose of the appeal on merits.

Same view has been expressed by Justice S. Jagadeesan in C.R.P.Nos.184 and 185 of 2002 dated 22.3.2002 as well as Justice N.V. Balasubramanian in N.BACHERLAL VS. S.SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE (2002) 3 M.L.J 500).

In view of the settled legal position, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority remanding the matter to the Rent Controller cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

In the light of the above conclusion R.C.A.No.35 of 2000 and 43 of 2000 are directed to be restored on file by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore with a direction to dispose of the same on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if any further particulars are required or are necessary, it is open to the Appellate Authority to call for a finding/report from the Rent Controller on the aspect which required or Appellate Authority can dispose of the appeal on merits as directed above.

Civil Revision Petitions are allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. C.M.P.No.13882 of 2002 is closed.