Remand of appeal by the appellate authority for fresh disposal.

These three revision petitions have been filed by three of the tenants against a common order of the Appellate Authority remanding the eviction petitions for fresh disposal. Seven petitioners claiming to be entitled to the premises in question filed eviction petitions against various tenants. The Rent Controller found that the petitions were not maintainable on the ground that all the persons who are entitled to rights in the premises in question were not parties. On appeal, the Appellate Authority held that the petitions were maintainable, and remanded back the petitions to the Rent Controller for disposal on other matters of controversy in the light of the observations made by the Appellate Authority. In the three revision petitions filed by three tenants, the main contention raised is that the Appellate Authority has no right to remand the matter for fresh disposal to the Rent Controller.

3. The power of the Appellate Authority is defined in section 23 of the Madras Act (XVIII of 1960) (Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act). Section 23 (3) provides:

“The Appellate Authority shall call for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal”.

The section does not confer any right on the Appellate Authority to remand the matter for fresh disposal. All that the sub-section empowers the Appellate Authority to do is decide the appeal after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. Option is given to the Appellate Authority to make the further inquiry either personally or through the Controller. It is specifically provided that the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal. The only power that is left with him is that if he does not make the “further enquiry” himself personally, he may call the Controller to make “such further enquiry”. But the decision can only be by the Appellate Authority.

3. In the decision in Rangaswami Naidu v. Second Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras1, a Bench of this Court Rajamannar, C.J. and Raghava Rao, J. held that under Act (XV of 1948) (Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act) the Appellate Authority cannot remand a case for fresh disposal by the Controller. Before the Bench it was contended that the Appellate Authority had an inherent power to remand a case to the Controller. The Bench was dealing with section 12 (3) of the Act (XV of 1948) which can be extracted:

“The Appellate Authority shall send for the records from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further enquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal”.

It will be seen that the sub-section is similarly worded as sub-section (3) of section 23 of Act (XVIII of 1960.) Dealing with the powers under the sub. section, the Bench observed that the subsection defined in clear terms the powers of the Appellate Authority, that the Appellate Authority has got the power to make such further enquiry as it thinks fit before deciding the appeal, that this enquiry, it can do, either personally or through the Controller, but that after such enquiry the Appellate Authority is bound to decide the appeal and that it is not enough if the Appellate Authority merely disposes of the appeal; he is bound to decide the appeal.

4. Following the decision of the Bench, it has to be held that the Appellate Authority has no power to remand, but has the power to make a further enquiry either by himself personally or through the Controller; but he has to decide the appeal himself.

5. On behalf of the respondents, certain decisions of this Court were referred to:

In Narayanaswami Reddiar v. Dhanraj Sowcar2, Ramaswami, J. observed:

“Remand is an exercise of judicial discretion by the learned District Judge whi