- (1.) This case has a long chequered career. Eviction application was filed an June 5, 1973 by the land lord respondent seeking, eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement of the demised premises by the landlord. After evidence had been adduced on both sides, eviction order was passed on September 23, 1974 by the Rent Controller. Appeal against this order was also dismissed on April 16, 1975. The same was challenged by way of revision before the Financial Commissioner, as by that time the said Authority had been vested with the revisional power in such cases. The learned Financial Commissioner accepted the revision set aside the eviction order and remanded the case for denove decision. Thereafter again eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller on March 23, 1976, The same having been challenged in appeal, the Appellate Authority again set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the case back by his order dated August 4, 1976 to the Rent Controller for de novo decision This order of remand was not challenged by any of the parties. In pursuance of the said order again ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller on April 12, 1977. The tenant feeling aggrieved against the same challenged it by way of appeal on merits. However, the appeal also did not find favour with the Appellate Authority. It is this order of the Appellate Authority which has been challenged in the present revision petition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily assailed the order of the Appellate Authority dated August 4, 1976, by which the eviction order dated March 23, 1976 was reversed by the Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel this order of remand was not warranted by Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1919, and was absolutely without jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this court in Raghu Nath Jalhota v. Romesh Duggal and anr., 1979 2 RCR(Rent) 501. In the said judgment the question of law was expressly decided to the effect that the Appellate or the Revising Authority under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act has no jurisdiction to remand the case for de novo decision by the Rent Controller.
(3.) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of remand, dated August 4, 1976 was acquiesced in by the petitioner who took their chance before the Rent Controller. The order dated April 11, 1977, by the Rent Controller was also challenged by the petitioners only on merits However, a perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that this objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction in the Appellate Authority to pass the order of remand was taken before the Appellate Authority. As the decision in Raghu Nath Jalhota case by a Division Bench of the Court was pronounced subsequently the Appellate Authority was not in a position to look into, merits of the objection. The mere acquiescence by the petitioners in the order of remand in as much as the same was not challenged in the High Court, cannot serve as an estoppel as there is no estoppel against law. In view of the decision in Raghu Nath Jalhotals case , the order of remand dated August 4, 1976 by the Appellate Authority under Section 15(3) of the aforesaid Act was without jurisdiction. As such. A the proceedings in pursuance of the said order by the Rent Controller and thereafter by the Appellate Authority also stand vitiated. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of remand dated August 4, 1976 by the Appellate Authority, remanding the case to the Rent Control for de novo decision is quashed. The consequence is that thee case will now go back before the Appellate Authority who will decide the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, dated March 23, 1676. On merits keeping in view the law as laid down in Reghu Nath Jalota's case .;