w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



HARI RAM VERSUS FIRM RAM PARKASH SHANTI LAL THROUGH SHRI RAM PARKASH MALIK


Company & Directors' Information:- SHRI HARI CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15422PN2012PLC142075

    Decided On, 24 January 1992

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JHANJI

    For the Appearing Parties: Ashish Handa, Ashish Kapoor, H.L. Sarin, S.C. Kapoor, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1) THIS is landlord's revision against the order of appellate Authority whereby the order passed by Rent Controller was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision after affording an opportunity to the tenants to lead evidence.

(2) THE petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the respondents on the ground of sub-letting as well as impairment of value and utility of the premises. An order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller against the tenants-respodents. The respondents thereafter, went in an appeal before the appellate Authority. During the penedey of said appeal, the respondents filed an application under Order 41, rule 27 Code of Civil procedure, to produce additional evidence. The said application was allowed. The appellate Authority also allowed the appeal of the respondents, setting aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, and ordered the case to be remanded to the Court of Rent Controller for fresh decision after allowing the respondents to lead additional evidence. This order is being impugned by the petition in the present revisioner petition.

(3) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed.

(4) THE order of remand directing the Rent Controller to decide the ejectment petition afresh on merits, is not permissible under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. The Section does not confer any right on the appellate Authority to remand the matter for fresh disposal. All that the sub-section empowers the appellate Authority to do so is to decide the appeal after making such further enquiry as it thinks fit, either personally or through the Rent Controller. It is specifically provided that the appellate Authority shall decide the appeal. In case it does not wish to make further enquiry itself, then it may call the Rent Controller for making such further enquiry. This means that the appeal should remain pending before the appellate Authority till the enquiry is concluded by the Rent Controller and report sent back. For this, I am supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishan Lal Seth v. Pritam Kumari, (1961) 63 P. L. R. 865 wherein in such circumstances, the order of appellate Authority remanding the case to the Rent Controller for fresh decision, was set aside.

(5) RESULTANTLY, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the appellate Authority is set aside, with a direction that it will recall the appeal filed by the tenants on its file and then proceed with the same in accordance with Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

1973. In case the Appellate Authority feels necessity for any further enquiry, then it may do so, or may call for a report from the Rent Controller and then dispose of the appeal on merits. (6) THE Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the appellate Authority on 10-3-1992.
O R