Kalpana Vyas vs Raj Kumar Rangwani

3. The   issue   involved  in   the   appeal   is  short,   as also the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, which would be clear from the narration infra.

9. The appellant (landlady) felt aggrieved and filed an appeal (144/2014) before the Appellate Tribunal. The   Appellate   Tribunal   by   order   dated   12.2.2015 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Tribunal,   decreed   the   appellant's   eviction   petition and   passed   the   eviction   decree   against   the respondent, in relation to the suit premises.

8. By   order   dated   8.2.2011,   the   Rent   Tribunal dismissed   the   appellant's   eviction   petition   holding that appellant's need can be accomplished with an alternative space available with her in the city.  3

14. In our opinion, the need to remand the case to the Rent Appellant Tribunal has occasioned because the High Court, while allowing the respondent's writ petition, came to a conclusion and accordingly held 5 that   the   Rent   Appellate   Tribunal   allowed   the appellant's   (landlady's)   appeal   with   a   casual approach   and   failed   to   record   any   categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need.  The operative part of the High Court order reads as under:­  “Taking   into   consideration   the   fact aforesaid, I do not find any reason for Rent Appellate Tribunal for setting aside the order of   the   Rent   Tribunal.    The   perusal   of   the impugned   order   shows   a   casual   approach   of the Rent Appellate Tribunal in reversing the finding   of   the   Rent   Tribunal,   that   too, without   going   into   the   issue   of   personal bonafide   necessity.     The   Rent   Appellate Tribunal   was   expected   to   first   decide   the issue   as   to   whether   respondent   is   having personal   bonafide   necessity   or   not. Accordingly,   impugned   order   passed   by   the Rent Appellate Tribunal is set aside.”           (emphasis supplied)

15. Having   held   that,   the   High   Court   had   two options: first either to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on 6 merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter itself on merits in accordance with law.

17.  The High Court, therefore, committed an error in   not   taking   recourse   to   any   option   and   without deciding the issue arising in the case on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal.

19. It is for this reason that we uphold the finding of the High Court in relation to the approach and the   manner   in   which   the   Rent   Appellate   Tribunal decided the appellant's appeal but consider it just and proper to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal   for   its   decision   on   merits   afresh   in accordance with law.

20. In   view   of   foregoing   discussion,   the   appeal succeeds   and   is   allowed.   Impugned   order   is modified to the extent that the case is remanded to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal (No. 144/2014)(Old No. 41/11) afresh on merits in accordance with law.

21. Since   the   matter   pertains   to  bona   fide  need and eviction, the Rent Appellate Tribunal will decide the   appeal   within   six   months   as   an   outer   limit strictly   in   accordance   with   law   without   being influenced by any observations made by this Court and the High Court.

22. Pending   application(s),  if any, stand disposed of.