Smt. Surinder Kaur vs Mohinder Bahadur Singh

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Simla, allowing a tenant''s appeal against an order of ejectment made by the Controller.

The Petitioner is the landlord and the Respondent is her tenant in respect of Set No. 2 of the premises known as Adda Villa situated in Simla. The Petitioner moved an application before the Controller for the eviction of the Respondent. That application was allowed by the Controller by his order dated July 23, 1975. The Respondent appealed and the Appellate Authority, Simla, being of opinion that it was necessary for the Controller to decide whether one Shri J.S. Nanda had vacated one of the sets in the building, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Controller and remanded the case to the Controller for fresh decision. The Petitioner now applies in revision.

The Petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority acted in excess of its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Controller in the circumstances and remanding the case to him for fresh decision. Section 21(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 provides:

The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after sending for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller.

It is apparent that in those cases where the Appellate Authority is of opinion that in order to decide the appeal a further enquiry is necessary it has been empowered to make that enquiry itself or to make it through the Controller. The expression ''through the Controller'' clearly contemplates that when the Controller makes the enquiry he does so on behalf of the Appellate Authority. In other words, the Controller makes the enquiry and forwards the findings reached by him to the Appellate Authority. He does so not for the purpose of disposing of a petition pending before him but for the purpose of enabling the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal pending before the latter. It is clear from the terms of Section 21(3) of the Act that the enquiry envisaged by that provision is intended in order to enable the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal. It is manifest that the provision does not contemplate that the appeal should be allowed and the case remanded to the Controller for making an enquiry and disposing of the petition afresh. No such power to remand the case has been conferred by Section 21(3) on the Appellate Authority. I am fortified in the view taken by me by the decisions of the Punjab High Court in Shri Krishan Lal Seth v. Shrimati Pritam Kumar 1961 PLR 865 and Rajinder Kumar v. Basheshar Nath 1965 PLR 974. I am of opinion that the order of the Appellate Authority is in excess of his jurisdiction and is vitiated accordingly.

Now that the case has to be considered again by the Appellate Authority, it will be for us to consider whether in the view of the law set out above it should hold the further enquiry itself or should direct the Controller to hold it and submit the result of the enquiry to it. Indeed, the Appellate Authority will begin by deciding again whether there should be any inquiry at all. This is a matter which the Appellate Authority will decide after hearing learned Counsel for the parties.

The revision petition is allowed. The order dated May 12, 1976 of the Appellate Authority, Simla is set aside and the case is remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made above. The parties will appear before the Appellate Authority on August 7, 1976. There is no order as to costs.