AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vyas Dev Misra, C.J.—The learned counsel for the parties agree that the whole revision can be decided peremptorily.
The respondent is the landlord and the present petitioner is the tenant. The landlordd made an application for eviction of the tenant. Various grounds were taken. One of the grounds was the arrears of rent. Another ground was per bona fide need, and the third related to the building having unsafe for habitation. The tenant raised various objections. One of the objections was that, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller decided against the tenant. The tenant appealed. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal.
I find that though the judgment runs into practically ten pages the main question decided is about the effect of non-deposit of the arrears of rent within the stipulated period. The Appellate Authority forgot that in an appeal a party is entitled to raise all the questions available and those questions must he decided. It was therefore, necessary for the Appellate Authority to decide whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also necessary for it to decide other questions which might have been raised including the question whether the tenant is in arrears of rent and if so what is the amount of arrears.
Mr. Kapil Dev Sood. learned counsel for the landlord, does not dispute that it was the duty of the Appellate Authority to decide all these questions.
The revision is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 4th July, 1983. No order as to costs.