IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.40 of 2004. Date of decision: 30.12.2008. Husan Singh ….Petitioner. -Versus- Gurdiyal Singh ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Pratima Malhotra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This Revision Petition under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act,1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla who has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) but has upheld the order of the learned Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted on the ground of change of user of the demised premises from non-residential to residential. Keeping in view the fact that I propose to remand the matter, it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail. It would however be pertinent to mention that the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises which are situated at Dhalli, Shimla on three grounds; (1) arrears of rent; (2) that the 2 tenant had changed the user of the premises and (3) that the respondent had made material additions and alterations which had impaired the value and utility of the building. The tenant contested the eviction petition and also challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1.Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so to what effect? OPP 2.Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant? OPP 3.Whether the respondent has changed the user of the premises? OPP 4.Whether the respondent has made addition and alterations in the premises, as alleged? OPP 5.Whether the respondent is owner of new structure? 6.Relief.” The Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the tenant on all three grounds. It is not disputed that the tenant deposited the arrears of rent within a period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act and as such this ground no longer survives. The learned Appellate Authority has given a detailed judgment. However, a reading of the detailed judgment shows that the Appellate Authority only framed one point for determination in the appeal, which reads thus: “1)Whether there was existing a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?” The learned Appellate Authority only discussed this issue from paras 16 to 23. He did not discuss the evidence or the arguments in relation to the two material issues i.e. issues 3&4. He without discussing the evidence and without taking into consideration the rival contention of the parties in para 24 held as follows: 3 “In view of my above findings, I conclude that the relationship of landlord or tenant between the parties with regard to disputed premises never came to an end and the appellant continues to be a tenant in the disputed premises under the respondent. Once it is so held, the appellant is to be held further liable to be evicted on the ground of non payment of rent, for the change of user of a part of the disputed premises from non-residential to residential purpose. Consequently, the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos.1, 2 and 3 are upheld.” The Appellate Authority under the Act is the final Court of fact. It is required to go through the evidence and deal with the rival contention of the parties. No doubt, one of the important issues raised was whether the relationship of landlord or tenant existed between the parties. However, once the learned Appellate Authority held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists he was required to go into the evidence and the contentions in respect of issues 3&4. The learned Appellate Authority has not at all considered the evidence or the contention of the parties. In view of the above discussion, I find that the learned Appellate Court has not at all applied its mind to the evidence on record. It has mechanically approved some findings and set-aside some findings without discussing the evidence at all. Therefore, there is no other option but to remand the matter to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the same. Accordingly, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 24.02.2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority on 17.01.2009. The Registry is directed to send the entire record of the Courts below so as to reach the learned Appellate Authority well before the said date. 4 Since the eviction petition was filed in the year, 1994 and the appeal was filed in the year, 2000, the learned Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st May, 2009. December 30, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge