( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20. 4. 2001, passed by the Additional Rent control Tribunal whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller s order dated 30. 8. 1999, dismissing the standard rent petition of the respondent was set aside and the case and remanded back to the learned ARC for decision afresh in accordance with law after considering the provisions of Section 76 (h) of the Transfer of Property act.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated, the facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner herein executed a mortgage deed dated 27. 2. 1973, in favour of the respondent in respect of the space comprising of 2200 sq. ft forming part of the third floor of the building known as 13-29, Block E, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The property was mortgaged for 25 years against a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs. Clause 6 of the mortgage deed stipulated that in the event of mortgage being redeemed by the mortgagor within the period specified therein, the mortgagee shall become the tenant for two years on rent from the date of redemption. The mortgagor agreed to execute the lease in favour of the mortgagee. It was further stipulated that the standard rent under the Rent Control Act will be the agreed rent. The mortgage deed further stipulated that the possession of the mortgaged property will remain with the mortgagee who was authorised to enjoy the same or any income therefrom and to appropriate the same towards the interest without any liability to account for the same. Before the expiry of said period of 25 years, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 23. 2. 1998 to the respondent for redemption of mortgage and a pay order of Rs. 3 lakhs drawn on the Bank of India, Janpath, New Delhi was also sent along with the letter. The letter was duly received by the respondent who, however, claimed to have become the owner of the property as the redemption was not in accordance with law. The petitioner then filed a suit in this Court for redemption of mortgage which is still pending.

( 3 ) ON 6. 4. 1999, the respondent herein filed a petition for fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller. It was alleged in the petition that question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to redeem the property or whether the respondent has become owner thereof is pending adjudication in this Court in suit no. 1430/1998. Clause 6 of the mortgage deed stipulated that on redemption of mortgagee, the respondent shall became the tenant of mortgaged property for a period of 2 years. Therefore, the respondent is filing this petition for fixation of standard rent. It appears from the record that despite several opportunities given to the petitioner written statement was not filed and the petitioner s defense was struck off. The respondent examined two witnesses. It may be pointed out here that in the said suit Division Bench of this Court had passed an order dated 27. 5. 1999, directing the rent Controller to dispose of the standard rent petition within three months. It appears that being under pressure of this order learned ARC rushed to close the evidence of the respondent without availing the services of any independent valuer under the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the DRC Act. Eventually, learned ARC dismissed that standard rent petition vide order dated 30. 8. 1999 being of the view that the respondent had failed to produce any evidence regarding cost of construction and the value of the land and there is no other material on record to fix the standard rent under Section 9 (4) of the DRC Act.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal RCA No. 631/1999, before the Rent Control Tribunal. It was contended by the respondents that standard rent should have been fixed under the provisions of Section 6 (1) (B) (2) (b) on the basis of cost of construction and the value of the land. However, learned Tribunal in para 29 of the impugned order obser