Civil Revision No. 3608 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3608 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.3.2010 Charanjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Vikram Dutt and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan, for the petitioner Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The learned Rent Controller, while allowing a petition in favour of the respondents-landlords ordered the eviction of the petitioner herein from the tenanted premises on a finding of personal necessity. During the pendency of the appeal (before the learned Appellate Authority), the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. That application was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statement made by the learned counsel for the party opposite on 13.5.2008. The essential grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it has to be assumed that the plea under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. remained undisposed of at the hands of the learned Appellate Authority. In the light of that averment, the argument proceeds the case would require a remand. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the error must have occurred on account of a typographical error, because the learned counsel representing party opposite could not have obviously got that application dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Revision No. 3608 of 2008 -2- It is apparent from the record that the plea under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of the learned counsel for the party opposite. Whatever may have led to that 'gaffe', it is a fact that the plea aforementioned remained undisposed of at the hands of the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he would concede before the learned Ist Appellate Authority that the respondent had joined employment as a Teacher in DAV School, Bikhiwind with efffect from 1.4.2007. Though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states through he had filed the application aforementioned for the purpose of proving that fact only , the matter has to be remanded in any case. A plea raised by the landlords for ejectment of the tenant on an averment of personal necessity has to be adjudicated upon by the learned Ist Appellate Authority in the first instance. It is for the learned Ist Appellate Authority, as a Court of fact, to notice the effect of employment aforementioned and to give a finding about the effect thereof, if any, upon the controversy under reference. In the light of forgoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 23.1.2008 shall stand set aside. The matter shall be lised before the learned Appellate Authority on 5.4.2010. The parties, through learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority on the date fixed. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that respondent has indeed joined employment with effect from 1.4.2007, the learned Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh by or on 15.4.2010. March 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE