Order.- The District Judge of West Thanjavur, in C.M.P. No. 39 of 1965 remitted the application filed by the landlord for fixing of fair rent to the Rent Controller for final disposal on the ground that he was not satisfied with two of the findings rendered earlier. The main question that is canvassed before me by the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition who is the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, East Thanjavur, is that the learned District Judge who exercised the powers under section 25 (1) (b) of the Madras Act (XVIII of 1960), has no powers of such remand and that, therefore, the order remitting the case for further trial and disposal by the Rent Controller, is unwarranted. There is a volume of literature on this subject whether an appellate Court, under Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, or a revisional Court, exercising power under the Madras Act XVIII of 1960 has powers of remand, enabling them to remit the subject-matter for fresh enquiry by the Rent Controller. The earliest case is one decided by Rajamannar, C.J.,and Raghava Rao, J., in Rangaswami Naidu v. Second Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras1. Their Lordships considered the scope of section 12 (3) of the Act XV of 1946 and held that the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act did not having the power of remand. In Narayanaswami Reddiar v. Dhanraj Sowoar2. Ramaswami, J., having held that there was no power of remand in the case which he considered, did not, however, delve deep into the question whether there was an inherent power of remand in the appellate authority or not. In Dhanakoti Chettiar and another v. M.M. Duraiswami Chettiar3, Ramachandra Iyer, C.J., without reference to the Division Bench (Rangaswami Naidu v. Second Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras1, held that there is an inherent power of remand in the revisional authority as well and he equated the revisional authority to an appellate authority. This aspect was again considered by Ganapathia Pillai, J., in Babu Mudaliar v. Bhaktavatsalu Chetti4. This aspect was again considered by Ganapathia Pillai, J., in Babu Mudaliar v. Bhaktavatsalu Chetti4. There the learned Judge makes a distinction that if the one and only ground on which the trial Court rested its conclusion is not acceptable either to the appellate or to the revisional Court then the learned Judge says that such appellate or revisional Court could remand But, if the appellate or a revisional authority differs from the trial Court in some out of many aspects of the case and finds that it would be necessary that, particular aspect or aspects should be reconsidered by the trial Court it should rather call for a finding from the trial Court instead of remanding or remitting the entire case for re-hearing and retrial. The apparent controversy has been set at rest by the decision of Anantanarayanan, C.J., in C.R.P. No. 1872 of 1964. The learned Chief Justice observed as follows: “The appellate authority has made the remand purely for purpose of evidence being taken in regard to certain relevant factors. In effect, the appellate authority is really calling upon the trial Court to make an enquiry and to submit a finding. In those circumstances, I think, that the proper course for the appellate authority under section 23 (3) is to retain the appeal on its file and to dispose of it after the Rent Controller makes a further enquiry and submit his findings.”