R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order, dated 29 -5 -1990 which is in the nature of interlocutory order. The petitioner had easier come up to this Court in Writ Petition No. 7994 of 1985 which was decided by a learned single Judge of this Court, vide his order, dated 22 -8 -1988. The questions were raised for consideration. First, whether the needs of the landlord were bona fide asking for the release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), and second, whether comparative hardship of the landlord was more than that of the tenant. The first question was decided in favour of the landlord. As regard the second question, the matter was remanded for fresh decision and the following two question were framed for the decision of the appellate authority. 1. In view of the fact that the tenant -petitioner is carrying on his business for 13 long years in the shop, the question of comparative hardship should be re -assessed and thereafter a clear finding be recorded.
(2.) ON the basis of material on record whether is it possible for the landlords to start their new business in the first floor instead of disturbing the show business of the tenant -petitioner on the ground floor. In remand proceedings, the petitioner filed an application 10 -C stating, inter alia, that he had now come to know that the respondent -landlords had another business at Agra in the name and Style of Hindustan Charm Kala Udyog and, therefore, this subsequent event may be taken into account while deciding the remand proceedings. He also asked for cross -examination of the respondent -landlords. By an order, dated 11 -1 -1990 the application 10 -C was disposed of. The Appellate Authority directed that the affidavit filed by the petitioner may be taken on record, it refused permission for cross -examination. In due course the petitioner made another application 22 -C seeking review of the order dated, 11 -1 -1990. This application was rejected by the impugned order, dated 25 -5 -1990. In rejecting the application Appellate Authority also commented on its earlier order, dated 9 -1 -1990 and held that the order was liable to be reviewed, inasmuch as, the proceedings pending before it were limited to the question as directed by the High Court and it had no jurisdiction to go into the question of bona fide need which had finally been set at rest by the High Court. It held that the affidavit filed by the petitioner on which the order dated 9 -1 -1990 was passed of no consequence. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order, dated 9 -1 -1990. I do not agree. The earlier order passed was in the nature of interlocutory order. The Appellate Authority on realising that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question which was sought to be canvassed by application No. 10 -C, its order, dated 11 -1 -1990 was wholly unnecessary. It was not disputed that the question of bona fide need had already been finally settled by this Court by its order, dated 22 -8 -1988 and the matter was remanded for a limited purpose restricting its scope to the two questions set out earlier. In this view of the matter no injustice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. The learned Counsel urged that in the impugned order some observations have been made by the Appellate Authority which may ultimately affect the merits of the question relating to the comparative hardship which is yet to be decided by the Appellate Authority. Be that as it may, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy. It is sufficient to observe that in deciding the appeal in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the Appellate Authority shall decide the question of comparative hardship independently of any observation made in the impugned order and any observation made by it in the impugned order shall not come in the way of the petitioner to argue his case on merits.
(3.) SUBJECT to the above, the writ petition is rejected summarily. A copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel within three days on payment of the usual charges.;