Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Mul Chand, etc, landlords, against the order of the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani dated March 24, 1977, remanding the case to the Rent Controller, for deciding the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Mul Chand, etc, Petitioners filed an application for ejectment against Nanak Ram, since deceased, In November, 1974. A notice of the application was cent to the tenant but be did not appear. The Rent Controller passed an ex -parte order of ejectment against him on Jane 17, 1975 Later, the tenant made an application for setting aside the ex -parte order on September 17, 1975. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for restoration on June 5, 1976. Against that order the tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority Bhiwani. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant died and his legal representatives became Appellants before him. Shrimati Misri Devi alias Parmeshwari Devi filed an application before the Appellate Authority that she was owner of the property and therefore, was a necessary party. The counsel for both the parties did not raise any objection to her being made a party. Consequently, the Appellate Authority, impleaded her as a party. The learned Appellate Authority thereafter accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for deciding the matter afresh after allowing the parties to lead evidence. Mul Chand, etc, landlords, have come up in revision against the order. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the learned Appellate Authority has not given any reasons, much less sufficient, for setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. He vehemently contends that it appears from the order of the Appellate Authority that he set aside the order of the Rent Controller merely on the ground that Shrimati Misri Devi alias Parmeshwari Devi was not objected to be made a party to the appeal. He submits that even if Shrimati Misri Devi had been made a party to the appeal, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to decide it on merits.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. It is evident from a reading of the order of the Appellate Authority that it has not given any reasons for setting aside the order of the Kent Controller. In the circumstances, the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. It may be clarified here that the parties still have no objection that Shrimati Misri Devi shall remain a party to the appeal.;