N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by Sri Mool Chand Arora against the judgment and order passed in Civil Revision No. 92 of 1992 in proceedings under Section 16 of Act No. 13 of 1972, filed by Ramesh Chand. The said revision was connected along with writ petition No. 109 of 1992 Jai Nath Srivastava v. Mool Chand Arora. This was also in proceedings under Section 16 of the Act. The dispute about allotment of a portion of house in question arose. The admitted position is that the house in question was the property of Bishamber Sahai. After his death Smt. Krishna Devi came into possession over the property. It is said that one will was executed by Bishamber Sahai in favour of Jai Nath Srivastava. No doubt, life interest was given for Smt. Krishna Devi. Smt. Krishna Devi was living in a portion of the house in question, who died on 7 -1 -1988. An application was moved for declaring the portion of accommodation in second floor to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act which was occupied by Harbir Singh. The proceedings for declaration of vacancy proceeded. In the meantime the petitioner also moved application for impleadment that he is owner of the property in question by virtue of a will executed by Bishamber Sahai. Thus, there was a dispute at the time of actual allotment proceedings before the Rent Control Authority as to who was the owner and landlord of the premises. The Rent Control Officer by his impugned judgment declared Mool Chand as landlord and owner of the premises and allotted the portion of the accommodation in favour of Harbir Singh. Still there were two other claimants for allotment of different portions of the same house, namely, Ramesh and Sohan Lal. Before the Revisional Court, the question about the dispute of title was also raised and it was argued before the Revisional Court that the Rent Control Authority has no jurisdiction to enter into the question for deciding the question of title. Further it was argued that the District Magistrate, i.e., the prescribed Authority had not even considered the objections raised by Sri Jai Nath Srivastava and Ramesh Chand against the application of Mool Chand and also the evidence adduced on their behalf in this regard was not considered. The learned Revisional Court after considering the arguments of the parties allowed the revisions and remanded the case. The judgment declaring Mool Chand as owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and allotment of the portion in favour of Harbir Singh was set aside. The case was remanded to the trial court for decision afresh in the light of the observations made by the Revisional Court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order of the Revisional Court is patently without jurisdiction and illegal. He submitted that no revision lay against an order under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He placed Section 18 of the Act which clearly shows that an appeal lay against an order passed under Section 16 or 19 of the Act. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Control Authorities had no jurisdiction to remand the matter when there was sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which he could have and should have decided the revision himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi : 1984 (10) ALR 281 (SC). The Supreme Court observed that the Revisional Authority is entitled to rectify legal error wherein proceedings for eviction of a tenant from a shop on the ground of sub -letting, the trial court unwarrantedly drew presumption of sub -letting from mere presence of outsider in shop and on revision the Addl. District Judge took exception to this approach to the matter by the trial court and since the evidence of the plaintiff had not been scrutinised under the erroneous impression of the legal position, the same was looked into to find out whether the claim of the sub -tenancy had been established, this was not an attempt to re -assess evidence but to take into consideration the evidence which had not been looked into by the trial court. No fault could be found with the revisional court for pointing out the legal error committed by the trial court in its approach to this material aspect. The legal position having been totally misconceived by the trial court and there being an assumption of the position which the landlord was required to prove by evidence, the revisional authority was entitled to point out the legal error and rectify the defect. Decision of Allahabad High Court, Reversed. Learned counsel on the basis of this authority submitted that since there was material on the record the revisional court should have decided the matter himself and there was no justification for remanding the matter before the Court below. The Supreme Court has not said that in each and every case the revisional court should take burden of deciding an issue which was not at all decided by the trial court. The Authority of the Supreme Court was dealing in a matter in which the revisional court had taken the burden on himself and decided the matter. In that circumstances, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the revisional court had acted within jurisdiction in deciding the matter himself instead of remanding the matter. This Authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next cited Kunwar Gulab Singh v. Zila Purti Adhikari and two others D.B., 1981 All RentCases 43. The Division Bench in the said Authority was considering whether the Rent Control Authorities can decide such dispute of title between the alleged co -owners while deciding allotment proceedings. The Court held that in such matters the Rent Control Authorities have jurisdiction to adjudicate the question as to who was the landlord. The person who had been receiving the rent immediately before the vacancy is landlord within the definition of landlord as given in the Rent Control Act. Thus, if a person has let -out an accommodation and was receiving rent shall be the landlord for purposes of Rent Control Act. Any decision given by competent Civil Court in respect of the title of the contesting claimant about title shall be final and superseded if any finding is given by the Rent Control Authorities. This Authority does not help the petitioner in any matter. In the present case the petitioner has set up his will and by the trial court he has been declared to be the owner. That finding has been set aside and the revisional court had remanded the matter to decide in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.;