- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
(2.) HEARD Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners who are tenants in the dispute accommodation. The Respondent No. 2 filed a S. C. C. Suit No. 301 of 1980 for ejectment of the petitioner on the two specific grounds; firstly that the petitioners have committed default in pay-men t of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 120 per month and that secondly the subtenancy has been created in favour of one Redhey Syam who happens to be the son-in-law of Amrit Lal, the original tenant, whose legal heirs arc the petitioners. The Trial Court dismissed the original suit No. 301 of 1980 holding that the rate of rent was not Rs. 120 but only Rs. 80 per month and since the entire amount had been deposited under Section 30 read with Sec tion 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, no default was committed. It was also held that land lady Respondent No. 2 had failed to estab lish that the tenanted accommodation had been sub-let in favour of Radhey Shyam, the son-in-law of the original tenant. Against the order of dismissal, the land lady Respondent No. 2 preferred a revision application No. 402 of 1986, which has been allowed by an order dated 17-4-1989 and set aside the dismissal order passed by the trial Court. The case has been remanded for decision afresh. Sri Sankatha Raj pointed out that the Revisional Court has adopted a short out method to remand the case and has not properly appreciated the findings recorded by the trial Court. It was pointed out that the order of remand is not sus tainable. In support of his contention, Sri Sankatha Rai placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Saghir Abbas v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 1999 (2) ARC 379 : 1999 (1) JCLR 1094 (A11 ). After having heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration that facts and circumstances of the case, I have enter tained a feeling that the Revisional Court has not properly appraised the evidence on record and has remanded the case un necessarily. The revision application should have been decided on merits finally by the Revisional Court. This writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17- 4-1989 passed in S. C. C. Revision No. 402 of 1986 is hereby quashed and the revision applica tion aforesaid is restored to its original number. It is directed that the Revisional Court shall decide the' revision application on merits after notice and hearing of Respondent No. 2. Since the revision ap plication which has been restored is very old one, all out efforts shall be made by the Revisional Court to decide the revision application on merits with all expedition preferably within a period of six months. Petition allowed. .;