The appellate court has jurisdiction to remand a case under Order 41 Rule 23A or 25 of the CPC only if the conditions specified in those rules are satisfied.

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. This application is directed against a judgment dated 16.6.1989 passed by Shri Baleshwar Prasad Singh, First Additional District Judge, Giridih in Eviction (Title) Appeal No. 2/61 of 1987-88 whereby and whereunder the said learned court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Second Additional Munsif, Giridih in Title Suit No. 155 of 1980 & 24 of 1987.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. Allegedly the plaintiff purchased the suit properties from the rightful owners by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 13.12.1979. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was a tenant under his vendor. The plaintiff therefore, filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default as also on the ground of her personal necessity. In the aforementioned suit, the defendant contended that she had been in occupation of the premises in question in her own right on the basis of an agreement dated 28.10.1979.

4. By a judgment dated 20.8.1983, the suit was decreed. The defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree which was registered as Title Appeal No. 59/5 of 1983-84, but the same was dismissed by a judgment dated 30.11.1985. A second appeal was preferred in this court, from the aforementioned judgment and decree which was registered as Second Appeal No. 21 of 1986 (R). By an order dated 5.11.1986 this court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below inter alia on the ground that as Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 will apply to the premises in question, and thus the matter should be remitted to the trial court. This court further gave liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence on the ground of default as also on the ground of her personal necessity.

5. After remand the suit was again decreed. The learned trial court by a judgment dated 30.7.1987 inter alia held that the defendant had failed to prove that she had been in occupation of the suit premises in terms of the agreement dated 28.10.1979. The learned trial court further held:–

"Therefore from the materials on record and oral evidence it is established that the plaintiff has got title and ownership to the suit also and the defendant being the tenant of the vendors of the plaintiff has not recognised her landlord is now a licensee and she is liable for eviction from the suit premises. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff."

6. The defendant-opposite party preferred an appeal as against the said judgment and decree which was registered as title appeal No. 2 of 1987.

7. By reason of the impugned judgment, as indicated hereinbefore the learned court of appeal below remanded the entire suit to the trial court holding inter alia:–

"No doubt the total valuation of the suit house can be known from the sale deed filed but there is no paper to this effect as to what is the valuation of the suit premises occupied by the defendant and that can be judged only if the parties are allowed to led evidence on that point which can be done by the lower court. In that view of the matter this is a fit case which should be remanded back to the learned lower court to decide the valuation of the portion of the suit house occupied by the appellant defendant and then after deciding the valuation of the plaintiff be directed to pay ad valorem court fee on that amount and then after hearing the argument of the parties decide the case in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence already adduced on behalf of both the parties which are on the record. I would also like to point out here that the parties should be asked to lead evidence only on the point of valuation and on no other point as they have already led evidence on other points."

8. It appears that the learned court of appeal below come to the aforementioned conclusion inter alia on the ground that as the plaintiff was held to he a licensee in respect of the suit premises, ad valorem court fee is required to be paid by the pl