Short Note : 1. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the revision petition, briefly stated, are: The plaintiff-petitioner brought the suit in question against the defendants non-applicants for ejectment from the suit accommodation. The defence of the defendants-non-applicants against eviction was struck out under section 13 (6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of non-deposit of rent as required by section 13 of the said Act. At the time of recording of evidence, the defendants-non-applicants wanted to ask certain questions in cross-examination as regards issues relating to arrears of rent and ground for eviction under section 12(1) (a) of the Act. The said questions were objected to on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. The trial Court, however, allowed the said questions to be asked subject to decision to be given as regards the admissibility of the evidence in question later on. However, when the evidence of the defendants-non-applicants were being recorded, the Court disallowed certain questions in examination-in-chief relating to the above said issues and the one relating to the determination of tenancy on the ground that the defence of the defendants-non-applicants against eviction had been struck out under section 13(6) of the Act, they were precluded from giving evidence as regards the said issues. It is not in dispute that as far as the other issues framed by the Court in the suit were concerned, including those relating to the existence of relationship of the land-lord and tenant between the parties, the defendants-non-applicants were not shut-out either from cross examining or adducing their own evidence with regard to them. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 31-12-76, decreed the claim of the plaintiff petitioner. The defendants-non-applicants filed an appeal (No. 44-A of 1977) against the said judgment and decree in the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur. The Addl. District Judge, vide his order in question dated 18-8-77, found that the defence of the defendants-non-applicants had been rightly struck out. However, assuming without any basis that the defendants-non-applicants had been shut-out from giving evidence in respect of his entire defence, the Addl. District Judge, vide his above said order dated 18-8-77, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case to it for a fresh disposal. However, assuming without any basis that the defendants-non-applicants had been shut-out from giving evidence in respect of his entire defence, the Addl. District Judge, vide his above said order dated 18-8-77, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case to it for a fresh disposal. It is having been aggrieved by the' said order that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present revision petition in this Court. Held : After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner - that the first appellate Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, acted in exercise of it's jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in setting aside the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court and passing an order of whole-sale remand of the case to the said Court for a fresh disposal. In view of there being an issue relating to arrears of rent, it appeared that the trial Court was not right in not admitting the evidence of the defendants-non-applicants in respect of the same. Further inasmuch as the striking out of defence against eviction did not preclude the defendants-non-applicants from adducing evidence on the issue as regards the determination of tenancy the trial Court was not right in refusing to admit the evidence of the defendants-non-applicants in respect of the said issue. But, the situation in question before the first appellate Court was governed by rules 27 to 29 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in view of the said specific provisions the Order in question passed by the first appellate Court, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for a fresh disposal, was unjustified and unwarranted. The said order has, therefore, to be set aside. 2. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 18-8-77 passed by the lower appellate Court, insofar as it sets aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and makes a wholesale remand of the case to the said Court for a fresh disposal, is set aside. The Civil Appeal No. 44-A of 1977-of the lower appellate Court, i.e., of the Court of the first Additional District Judge, Bilaspur is restored to the file of the said Court. The Civil Appeal No. 44-A of 1977-of the lower appellate Court, i.e., of the Court of the first Additional District Judge, Bilaspur is restored to the file of the said Court. Inasmuch as the trial Court had wrongly refused, to admit the evidence of the defendants-non-applicants in respect of issues Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 12, it is directed as per provisions contained in rules 27 to 29 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the trial Court shall take evidence of the defendants-non applicants on the said issues and send the said evidence when taken to the lower appellate Court. On the receipt of the said evidence, the lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provision of law. Revision allowed.