G.C.MITAL, J. - (1.) KAMAL Kumar son of Hari Kishan son of Madan Gopal filed a petition for ejectment of successors-in-interest of Kirpal Singh tenant on the ground that the shop in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In the ejectment petition it was pleaded that Madan Gopal was Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and was owner of the property in dispute as such, which was let out to Kirpal Singh as a tenant. On the death of Kirpal Singh, his sons and daughters were in possession as tenants. It was pleaded that under the family arrangement, Kamal Kumar got the property in dispute who on the strength of the family arrangement, claimed to be the exclusive owner and landlord of the premises and filed the ejectment application.
(2.) THE tenants admitted that their father had taken the premises on rent from Madan Gopal but denied if the property in dispute belonged to Joint Hindu Family or that there was any family arrangement under which title passed on to Kamal Kumar. His locus standi to file the petition was challenged. They also denied if the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller by order dated 3rd December, 1982 found that the property in dispute belonged to Joint Hindu Family of which Kamal Kumar was a coparcener having the right in the property from the date of his birth. He also came to the conclusion that documents relied upon proved family arrangements which did not require stamp and registration. Accordingly, it was held that Kamal Kumar was the sole owner and the landlord of the property qua the respondents, who were the legal representatives of the original tenant. As regards the condition of the building a finding was recorded on the appreciation of evidence that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. As a result, the order of eviction was passed. The tenants went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the trial Court by order dated 10th September, 1984 without going into the merits and the ground of ejectment by basing his decision on the finding that Kamal Kumar was not proved to be the landlord. The reason for arriving at this conclusion was that it was not proved that the property in dispute was of Joint Hindu Family of which Madan Gopal may be Karta and that the documents showing the alleged family arrangements in facts were documents creating a title, and, therefore, required registration. Kamal Kumar came to this Court in this revision. By order dated 20th February, 1985, the Appellate Authority was directed to find out and to submit a report to this Court whether Kamal Kumar was the son of Hari Kishan who had died during the life time of Madan Gopal because if that was so even in the absence of the property being Joint Hindu Family and the family arrangement on the death of Madan Gopal he would be one of the landlords and as such would be entitled to maintain the ejectment petition. The Appellate Authority was also directed to report whether the premises in dispute was unfit and unsafe for human habitation as it had not recorded any finding in this behalf while allowing the appeal. The Appellate Authority has submitted report dated 19.9.1985. According to the report the premises in dispute have been found to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the other matter he reported that Kamal Kumar is not one of the landlords and this conclusion which he has drawn is wholly against the record. The Appellate Authority again has not understood the scope of the remand order of this Court and has committed somewhat the same mistake which it had committed while passing the original order. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority is contained in paras 8 and 9 of the report, which may be adverted to.
(3.) IN para 8 of its report, the Appellate Authority started observing that there was no evidence that the property in dispute was ancestral and then noted that according to Kamal Kumar it had been partitioned and lost its character of being ancestral. Then it is observed that according to Kamal Kumar, his father and grand father formed Joint Hindu Family but according to the learned Judge joint living and joint mess do not prove that Joint Hindu Family owned any property. Then he observed that there was no evidence that Madan Gopal was the owner of the property although he may be landlord within the meaning of Section 2 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. He then observed that the rights of Madan Gopal devolved upon Hari Kishan. Then reference was made to the argument raised on behalf of Kamal Kumar that one of the tenants had admitted that after the death of Madan Gopal, his heirs are the sons and daughters but according to the learned Judge this admission did not amount to prove the ownership of Madan Gopal in the property in dispute. In para 9 of the report reference was made to the document by which family arrangement was arrived at. The argument raised on behalf of the landlord that it could be seen for the purposes of nature and character of possession if not the ownership was noticed. The Appellate Authority observed that since Kamal Kumar has claimed ownership on the basis of family arrangement, he cannot claim the same by inheritance as is the case now set up which is beyond pleadings. The Appellate Authority then observed :- "Since it is not his case that he became landlord by way of inheritance, he cannot be allowed to urge on this ground." The aforesaid consideration of the case by the Appellate Authority is clearly against the remand order of this Court dated 20th February, 1985. This Court was conscious of the fact whether the claim on the basis of inheritance would be beyond the pleadings or not and yet the order was passed to find out whether after the death of Madan Gopal who was admittedly the landlord of the premises in dispute, Kamal Kumar would be one of the landlords on the basis of inheritance. Both the parties were allowed opportunity to lead evidence. The Appellate Authority was duty bound to appraise that evidence and to report to this Court whether Kamal Kumar would be one of the heirs of Madan the original landlord. It is not only dereliction of duty, but the learned Judge has also demonstrated that he wanted to stick to his own view in spite of the specific remand order to report to this Court on the matter of inheritance. The observations made in para 9 of the report of the Appellate Authority virtually amount to contempt of the order of this Court.;