- (1.) SUSHIL Harkauli, J. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also examined the judgment of the Revisional Court dated 19-8-2003.
(2.) IT may be mentioned here that Writ Petition No. 47630 of 2003 filed against the said revisional order by the respondents was dismissed as not pressed on 13-8-2004. The petitioner claims to be landlord of a building in which the respondents are said to be tenant. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was instituted by the petitioner as SCC Suit No. 247 of 1984. In the said suit the following six issues were framed: (1) Whether the suit had been or could be instituted under the signatures of the petitioner in the capacity of Mutwalli; (2) Whether the suit was barred by Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. ; (3) Whether U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U. P. Rent Control Act) will apply to the said building; (4) Whether the defendant had committed default in depositing rent, and whether the defendant had damaged or altered the building without permission of the plaintiff and had thereby reduced the utility or value of the building; (5) Whether the defendants No. 1 to 4 had sublet the shop in dispute to the respondents No. 5 and 6 without permission of the plaintiff, if so its affect; (6) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No. 4 and 5 were decided against the plaintiff by the Trial Court. In revision the Revisional Court has not examined the issues No. 4 and 5 and has remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh decision to issue No. 3.
(3.) WHILE the decision of issue No. 3, if given in favour of the plaintiff holding that Rent Control Act does not apply would make issues No. 4 and 5 irrelevant, to the extent of relief of ejectment but issue No. 4 would continue to be relevant for the purpose of decree for rent atleast. Therefore, before remanding the case it was prima facie obligatory upon the Revisional Court to have examined the issues No. 4 and 5 also and either to have affirmed the finding of the Trial Court on those issues or to have passed such other order in respect of those issues also, as may have been called accordance with law. In view of these circumstances, the order the Revisional Court dated 19-8-2003 is set aside. The matter will be reconsidered by the Revisional Court in accordance with aforesaid observation expeditiously as possible.;