Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 6th December, 1979, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi, whereby he allowed a revision petition No. 31 of 1979, set aside the judgment of the Court below and remanded the suit for a fresh decision. I have heard Sri D.P. Bahadur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.N. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE landlord respondent filed a Small Cause Suit No. 743 of 1971 for the ejectment of the tenant petitioner from the accommodation in question. His case, inter -alia, was that the tenanted accommodation was constructed in the year 1952 and the Rent Control Act was not applicable to it. The suit was dismissed and the landlord filed the aforesaid revision petition contending, inter -alia, that his plea, that the Act was not applicable to the premises in question, has not been decided by the Court below. The learned Additional District Judge agreed with this view and remanded the matter to the trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge also admitted some papers in evidence that were filed before him and ordered the petitioner to be compensated by award of costs. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the issues regarding default and sub -letting were decided against the landlord and the trial Court had also held that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act stood waived by acceptance of rent subsequently and, therefore, the remand of the case was unjustified.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that against a remand order, a writ petition is not maintainable. No authority for this proposition has been cited and I do not find any principle of law debarring a remand order being challenged in a writ petition. Regarding the merits of the remand order, I am of the view that the same was justified in the circumstances of the case. The landlord had specifically set up a case that the Act was not applicable to the premises in question and, admittedly the learned Lower Court did not advert itself to this important point and did not even state that this plea was not pressed before it. Therefore, this is not a fit case in which an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.;