Shamsher Singh vs Sampuran Singh and Another

Ashok Bhan, J.—Landlord-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an application for ejectment against the respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from an industrial plot. This application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 14-11-1987. Tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30-11-1987.

During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority on 6-12-1991 for one reason or the other, the plot was resumed by the Department of Industries. On an application filed by the landlord operation of the order dated 6-12-1991 resuming the plot was stayed by the Department of Industries on 18-5-1992 Tenant filed an application before the Appellate Authority that his appeal be accepted and the application for ejectment filed by the landlord be dismissed because the petitioner ceased to be the landlord as the plot had been resumed by the Department of Industries. This appeal was accepted by the Appellate Authority solely on the ground that the petitioner ceased to be the landlord and, therefore, the application filed by him was not maintainable. It was however, made clear that as and when the landlord becomes the owner with regard to the demised premises, he would seek ejectment of his tenant Landlord being aggrieved filed the present revision petition which was admitted to hearing. On notice of motion having been issued the tenant refused to accept the service and did not put in appearance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner produced an order dated 20-1-1993 passed by the Director industries, Punjab restoring the plot to the landlord after cancelling the order of resumption passed on 6-12-1991.

I have heard the learned counsel for the landlord. The order dated 6-12-1991 resuming the plot of the landlord stands cancelled by the subsequent order dated 20 1-1993 which has been produced in Court. A photostat copy of this order is ordered to be placed on record. The Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal of the tenant solely on the ground that the petitioner had ceased to be the landlord because of the order of resumption of the plot passed on 6-12 1991. The order of resumption passed on 6 12-1991 stands cancelled by subsequent order dated 0-1-1993 and the petitioner becomes landlord of the premises in dispute. Landlord is entitled to get his appeal restored before the Appellate Authority and to get the same decided on merits.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 28-7-1992 is set aside and the case is remitted to the Appellate Authority for re-decision of the case on merits. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent, there shall be no order as to costs. Records received in this Court be returned to the lower appellate Court immediately.