Narinder Nath and Others vs Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—This revision has been directed against the order passed by. the learned Rent Controller dated 26.7.1979 and one passed by the learned Appellate Authority dated 23.8.1980 in the appeal preferred by the petitioners.

The petitioner-landlord had brought a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenants u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on various grounds including personal necessity. Learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority held that the petitioners had earlier filed similar petitions which were withdrawn and that became the prima facie ground for declining the desired relief to the petitioners. It is, no doubt, true that other reasons have also been given by the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority in declining the relief to the petitioners, but all these reasons have been given in perfunctory manner, particularly by the Appellate Authority.

So far as finding of the learned Appellate Authority with regard to the fact that the petitioners earlier filed petitions u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and dismissal thereof, is concerned, this court is of the view that this finding is erroneous and needs to be set aside.

Admitted and proved facts that the petitioners-landlord filed three petitions for eviction. In the first application for eviction, ground of personal necessity was not even raised. In the second petition such a ground was raised and the said petition was also dismissed as withdrawn. The said second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Rent Controller, which reads as under .:-

"I withdraw my application as there is technical defect in the application. I will file fresh application."

Oh the basis of the aforestated statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-

"In view of the statement of the counsel for the applicant, the application is dismissed."

The statement of the counsel as also order Ex. R1 referred to above, has to be read together. It would clearly show that the petitioner was granted permission to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. In these circumstances, the present petition on the ground of personal necessity was not barred for having not sought permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action. In as much as the real issue before the Court with regard to personal requirement of the premises by the petitioner has not been properly discussed and particularly by the Appellate Authority, it is in the fitness of things that the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the case is remanded to the said Authority for fresh decision after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and in accordance with law. So ordered. The parties to appear before the learned Appellate Authority on 20.1.1999.