Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE landlord has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 24th April, 2010 passed by the Revisional Court by which the order dated 10th December, 2003 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to decide it afresh in accordance with the earlier direction issued by the Revisional Court.
(2.) IT is stated that the tenant had moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for induction of a partner in the business carried by him. This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 11th December, 2001 against which the landlord preferred Revision No. 1 of 2002 which was allowed by the order dated 6th February, 2002 and a direction was issued to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the application afresh in accordance with the observations made in the order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, thereafter, again allowed the application filed by the tenant by the order dated 10th December, 2003. The petitioners preferred Revision No. 15 of 2003 with the allegation that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not complied with the earlier direction issued by the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court in the impugned order dated 24th April, 2010, has accepted this contention of the petitioners and has, therefore, quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding it afresh in accordance with the earlier direction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not complied with the earlier direction issued by the Revisional Court, the Revisional Court should have itself decided the matter on merit instead of remanding it to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
(3.) IT is not possible to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners in Revision that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not complied with the earlier direction issued by the Revisional Court on 6th February, 2002. This contention of the petitioners has been accepted by the Revisional Court and, therefore, the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding it afresh. Merely because the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had failed to comply with the directions issued by the Revisional Court cannot be made a ground to insist that the Revisional Court should itself decide the application on merits.;