Civil Revision No.3592 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3592 of 2001 Date of decision 19.01.2009 Pirthipal and another .....Appellants versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr.R. K. Battas, Advocate for respondent No.5. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The landlord assails the order of remand made by the Appellate Authority which had found that the petition failed for non-joinder of necessary party and directed the impleadment of a third party Tarlochan Singh who was stated to have independent title to the property. The appellate Authority had already framed several other issues as follows:- A) Whether the petition is bad for partial eviction as alleged in reply? OPR. B) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant between Waryam Singh and appellant, if any, had come to an end after the death of Waryam Singh and Tarlochan Singh became new contractual landlord through his father Manohar Singh on the basis of lease deeds duly registered as alleged? OPR. C) Whether jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is barred as this is a case of lease and such a matter can only be decided by the Civil Court?OPR. Civil Revision No.3592 of 2001 -2- D) Whether M/s Manohar singh Sethi & Sons through Trarlochan Singh are the lessers to run the petrol pump as alleged, if so its effect?OPR. 2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that admittedly the property had been leased out to Bharat Petroleum Corporation by Waryam Singh and was prosecuting application of eviction against the tenant by pleading non-payment of rent among other grounds. The petition had been allowed and during the pendency of the appeal, an application had been filed at the instance of Tarlochan Singh claiming title of the property. That application was dismissed on 10.4.2001 holding that there was scope for adjudication of title in rent control proceedings, especially when the action for eviction had been brought at the instance of landlord against his own tenant and that a third party could not come on record and seek for any adjudication. However, in the final decision rendered by the appellate authority, it adopted a different reasoning from how it had been dealt within its order dated 10.4.2001 and found that the matter could not be disposed of without impleading Tarlochan Singh also as a party. While so doing it directed the remand of the matter. 3. Before this Court it is contended by the learned revision petitioner that the Appellate Authority did not itself have a power to remand. The powers of the appellate authority are set-forth under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which states as follows:- Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government:- (1) (a) The (State) Government may, by a general or special order, by notification confer on such officers and authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area in such classes of cases as Civil Revision No.3592 of 2001 -3- may be specified in the order. (b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. (In computing the period of fifteen days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded.) (2) On such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appealed (3) The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after sending for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. (4) The decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of Law (except as provided in Sub-Section(5) of this section.) 4. The appellate authority have power to order stay of further proceedings and may also decide the appeal after sending for the records of the case from the Controller. The power of remand is a power which is set- forth under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code Order 41 Rule 23 and our Courts have held that the rent control legislation being a special legislation, the procedure prescribed under the Civil procedure code shall not be imported as a matter of routine. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also refers to the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1980 at All India Rent Control Journal at P-404 in Raghu Nath Jalota versus Ramesh Duggal and another, to invoke the proposition that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction under Section 15(3) of the East Civil Revision No.3592 of 2001 -4- Punjab Rent Restrictions Act. The remand of the whole decision afresh specifically under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23 have not been applicable to it. The remand order directly conflicts with the decisions on this aspect and the order is clearly vitiated. The several issues which the appellate authority has framed relating to adjudication are equally untenable. The case ought to be disposed of on the pleadings already raised before the Rent Controller and the appeal shall be directed only against issues expressly taken before the Rent Controller. There is no warrant for framing additional issues in the manner done by the appellate authority. 5. The order of the appellate authority dated 30.4.2001 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for disposal of the appeal as per law, on the basis of pleadings and points for consideration already framed before the Rent Controller and for adjudication before the appellate authority. Since the matter relates to case file of 1990, it is directed that the appeal be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the record. The registry is directed to despatch the records forthwith. The appellate authority shall give a report of its disposal as directed above. 6. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. Parties shall appear before the appellate authority in person or through counsel on 10.2.2009. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 19.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL