G. N. Ray, J. - (1.) Leave granted. Pursuant to the notice issued on the Special Leave Petition No. 1687 of 1993, the respondent has entered appearance through counsel and the counter-affidavit has also been filed.
(2.) The appellant-landlord is the owner of the suit premises being Shop No. 142, Gandhiji Road, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu. On June 15, 1971, the appellant-landlord leased out the premises in question to Sri G. Vasanthan on a monthly rental of Rs. 400/- with effect from June 13, 1971 and the appellant-landlord sought eviction of the said tenant Vasanthan and filed a petition for eviction on April 22, 1975 under Section 14(l)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) before the Rent Controller Mayiladuthurai. By an order dated December 12, 1975, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the said eviction proceeding being R.C.O.P. No.9 of 1970. The appellant-landlord preferred an appeal against the said order of the Rent Controller before the appellate authority. By order dated August 31, 1977, the appellate authority allowed the said appeal and directed the eviction of the said tenant Vasanthan. Thereafter, the appellant-landlord on August 29, 1978, let out the suit premises to the respondent M. R. Ramachandra Naidu for a period of three years from August 1, 1978 to August 31, 1981 on a rental of Rs. 750/- per month. The period of lease was extended further for another term of three years with effect from September 1, 1981 to August 31, 1984. It is the case of the landlord that he required the suit premises for expansion of his own business and also the pawn broking business under the partnership of his wife and daughter-in-law. The appellant-landlord served a notice dated November 5, 1984 upon the respondent-tenant asking him to vacate the suit premises. The respondent-tenant refused to vacate the suit premises and on April 17, 1985, the appellant-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the appellant-landlord required more space for running the said pawn broking shop as well as the business of his own. The appellant-landlord also urged that since the suit premises were old and in a dilapidated condition the same required urgent demolition and construction and accordingly the tenant should also be evicted under Section 14(l)(b) of the Rent Act. By an order dated October 5, 1987, the learned Rent Controller allowed the said R.C.O.P. No. 37 of 1985 on the ground that the appellant-landlord had made out a case under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Act and he required the suit premises bona fide for his own occupation. The Rent Controller, however, negatived the case of the appellant-landlord that he required the premises for demolition or construction under Section 14(l)(b) of the Rent Act. The respondent-tenant thereafter filed R.C.A. No. 4 of 1988 dated April 26, 1989. The appellant-landlord also filed Cross Appeal being R.C. A. No. 9 of 1988 against the dismissal of the appellant landlord's case (supra) for eviction under Section 14(l)(b) of the Rent Act. By a judgment and order dated April 26, 1988, the appellate authority dismissed R.C.A. No. 4 of 1988 filed by the respondent-tenant after endorsing the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the suit premises was bona fide required by the appellant-landlord for his use and occupation. The learned appellate authority, however, dismissed the landlord's Cross Appeal being R.C.A. No. 9 of 1988 by the same judgment. The respondent-tenant thereafter filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1448 of 1989 in the High Court of Madras challenging the said eviction order under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Act. By an order dated April 11, 1990, the said Civil Revision Petition No. 1448 of 1989 was allowed by the High Court of Madras and the case was remanded to the appellate authority inter alia directing the appellate authority to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law and in terms of the directions contained in the said order. Thereafter, pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court to both the parties to adduce further evidence before the appellate authority, fresh evidences both oral or documentary were adduced before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by a judgment and order dated December 14, 1990, dismissed the said R.C.A. No. 4 of 1988 filed by the respondent-tenant and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. The respondent-tenant thereafter filed a Civil Revision Petition being Civil Revision Petition No. 436 of 1991 in February, 1991. The said Civil Revision Petition was allowed by the High Court by its order dated December 11, 1992 inter alia on the finding that the appellate authority had not decide the appeal after remand in conformity with the order of remand dated April 11, 1990 passed by the High Court. The appeal was remanded for the second time by the High Court before the appellate authority by directing inter alia that the said appeal should be disposed of by following the direction contained in the order of remand dated April 11, 1990. It is this second order of remand dated December 11, 1992 which has bee challenged in the instant appeal by the appellant-landlord.
(3.) Since the impugned second order of remand has been passed by the High Court inter alia on the finding that the appellant authority failed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the directions contained in the earlier order of remand, it is necessary to advert to the observations made in the first order of remand in order to appreciate as to whether or not the appellate authority has failed to dispose of the appeal properly in accordance with the directions contained in the order of remand.;