D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) - Respondent-landlord who on the death of his father Salig Ram Datta succeeded to the demised premises along with other heirs, sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant), on the ground that he needed the demised premises for bonafide use and occupation for his own and his brother's family members. The trial Court ordered ejectment. The tenant preferred an appeal, against the order. During the pendency of the appeal, two other tenants of the respondent-landlord occupying the remaining portion of the house vacated the premises which was on rent with them. The tenant herein moved an application on 10th May, 1978 before the Appellate Authority bringing this fact to its notice. Landlord R.K. Datta filed his reply thereto. The Appellate Authority, as the perusal of its order would show, took no notice of this application and the affidavit and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller.
(2.) The intervening circumstance has always to be taken notice of by the Court and in the circumstances the Appellate Authority was duty bound to deal with this new development and give its finding as to whether the landlord's requirement for the portion in the occupation of the tenant in question, still persisted. I, therefore, direct the Appellate Authority to make an enquiry regarding the new development as disclosed by the application of the tenant and submit its report to this Court within six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. The revision petition is to be listed for hearing again after the receipt of the report from the Authority on 18th Aug., 1980. The relevant record be dispatched to the Appellate Authority forthwith per bearer.;