Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 668 (PNJ)

Jeet Enterprises v. Gurnam Singh

2001-07-09

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a revision and has been directed against the order dated 7.4.1981 passed by the Additional Appellate Authority, Chandigarh who dismissed the appeal of M/s. Jeet Enterprises, filed under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 3. This case is liable to remand for the simple reason that during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed an application under Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act i.e. Act No. III of 1949 as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh for leading the additional evidence on the ground that the site in question has been resumed by the Estate Officer and in these circumstances, the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist between the parties but that application has not been decided by the Appellate Authority. 4. The grouse of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that in the interim order the Appellate Authority stated that he will dispose of the two applications i.e. one under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and the second under Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, along with the appeal but he has disposed of only one application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and by not disposing the application under Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner who could convince the Appellate Authority that the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist between the parties. She further argued that the Appellate Authority has mainly relied upon a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as 1980 PLR 441 Amritsagar Kashyap v. Chief Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh, and this judgment has been overruled by the Honble High Court in a case reported as AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 301 (Full Bench), Ram Puri Chandigarh v. Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh and others. It was further argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no dispute between the parties that the site in question has already been resumed by Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 20.5.1975 and since then the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist between the parties. 5. It was further argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no dispute between the parties that the site in question has already been resumed by Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 20.5.1975 and since then the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist between the parties. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it may be possible that the petitioner might not have pressed the application under Section 15(4) of the Act and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity before the Additional Appellate Authority to discuss and decide that application. 6. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner because the record of the Appellate Authority shows that two applications were moved by the petitioner; one under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading the Union of India through the Estate Officer, Chandigarh as party to the proceeding and the second for leading additional evidence, under Section 15(4) of the Act. In the interim order dated 11.3.1981 the Appellate Authority has specifically stated that these applications shall be disposed of along with the main appeal itself on 2.4.1981 and the impugned order shows that only one application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was discussed and disposed of and the second application under Section 15(4) of the Act was never considered or disposed of. The reading of the second application would show that it will be a point to be adjudicated whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties specially in view of the judgment reported as AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 301 (FB) (supra). 7. In this view of the matter I allow this revision; set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 7.4.1981 and remand the case to the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, with the directions to dispose of the application under Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as well as the appeal according to law, within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 23.7.2001. There shall be no order as to costs. Records of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Authority be sent back immediately. Revision allowed.