MAHA DEVI Vs. RAM RICHHPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is concluded in favour of the petitioner by the Division Bench Judgment in Krishan Lal Seth v. Smt. Pritam Kumari, 1961 63 PunLR 865. Therein it has been held that the appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has no power to set aside an order of the Rent Controller and remand the matter to him for retrial and redecision. The relevant facts may be briefly recounted. Ram Richhpal, respondent-tenant had moved an application for the fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller. After trial the same was dismissed. An appeal was carried before the appellate authority, Rohtak against that order by the aggrieved tenant. The learned appellate authority by its order dated the 5th of January, 1974, accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh after giving the parties further opportunity to produce their evidence. The Rent Controller was also directed to collect all available evidence himself for the determination of the fair rent.

(2.) Mr. S.C. Kapoor has rightly contended that the appellate order has to be set aside in view of the ratio of Krishan Lal Seth's case . Learned counsel has also cited an unreported decision in J.S. Walia v. Subhash Chander Bhargwa (C.R. No. 14 of 1968 decided on the 30th July, 1968). In this judgment Pandit, J. set aside a similar order of remand by the Appellate Authority in a case for fixation of fair rent.

(3.) In view of the above-quoted judgments, the revision petition must succeed. The decision of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside and it is directed that the appeal pending before it be disposed of on merits. There will be no order as to costs.