SUKHDEV SINGH KANG, J. - (1.) SHRI Dev Pal Kashyap has filed this revision petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment dated 14th June, 1982, passed by the Appellate Authority, Faridkot, allowing the appeal of M/s. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan-respondent and setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Faridkot, vide order dated 19th October, 1979. The facts are brief and lie in a narrow compass.
(2.) SHRI Dev Pal Kashyap petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of M/s. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan and another, on the ground that firm M/s. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan (respondent No. 1) was his tenant; it was in arrears of rent and had sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2. It was also averred that respondent No. 1 had committed such acts as were likely to impair the material value and utility of the premises in dispute and that the tenant had not occupied the shop for a period of over one year. The premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The ejectment application was contested by respondent No. 1. In its written statement it denied the material allegations. The case was hotly contested. Both the parties led evidence. During final hearing of arguments the parties came to terms and entered into a compromise. The learned Rent Controller recorded the statements of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Kulbhushan Beri and the applicant which was countersigned by his counsel Shri Hans Raj Bansal, Advocate. After going through the evidence on the record and the statements of Shri Kulbhushan Beri, Advocate, and the applicant Shri Dev Pal Kashyap, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application and passed an order of ejectment of respondent No. 1 from the shop in dispute subject, however, to the condition that respondent No. 1 shall vacate the shop as and when the applicant gets another shop, denoted by mark 'X' on plan Exhibit C1 on the file of the Rent Controller, vacated from its present occupants and puts respondent No. 1 into its possession as a tenant. The rent of the new shop will be Rs. 100/- per month from the date of actual occupation. If the applicant was unable to deliver possession of shop marked 'X' to the respondent, as per the agreed terms, within one year from the date of the passing of the order, the application shall stand dismissed. If on the other hand the respondent fails or refuses to take possession or occupies the shop within 15 days of the service of the registered notice on him to this effect, the applicant will be entitled to get execution of the ejectment order through Court. M/s. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan filed an appeal against this order of the learned Rent Controller. It came up for hearing before Shri Dev Bhushan Gupta, Appellate Authority, Faridkot. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the landlord that the appeal was not competent because the Rent Controller had passed the order of ejectment with the consent of the parties. This objection was overruled by the learned Appellate Authority. The plea of the appellant that Shri Kulbhushan Beri, Advocate, had no authority to enter into a compromise, found favour with the learned Appellate Authority. He held that Shri Kulbhushan Beri was not authorised to compromise the case. He had no authority to surrender the possession of a bigger shop in exchange for a smaller one at an enhanced rent. The learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and remanded the case to him for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
(3.) MR . R.L. Sarin, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that since the ejectment order had been passed by the learned Rent Controller with the consent of the parties, M/s. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan-respondent cannot be termed to be the person aggrieved by that order. So it could not file an appeal against the impugned order. In support of this contention Mr. Sarin has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Kanagarathnammal v. H. Sama Rao, (1955) 11 M.L.J. 433.;