Anything done in pursuance of a remand order that is subsequently set aside is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon.

I.S.Tiwana, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against an order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th July, 1980, whereby the eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered on the ground that the demised premises in his possession has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are as follows

3. Kishan Kaur (landlady) respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner and Balwinder Singh, her son, with the allegations that two portions rented to them separately had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the tenants had not paid the rent due to her. Balwinder Singh did not put in appearance inspite of service and thus was proceed ex-parte. After recording the evidence on behalf of the parties, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of Balwinder Singh from the portion in his possession and dismissed the application of the landlady qua the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that at on the first day of hearing, the petitioner had tendered the arrears of rent due from him and thus this ground of eviction pleaded against him became non-existent. With regard to the other issue, the Rent Controller recorded a finding that the building in possession of the petitioner had not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

4. This order of the Rent Controller dated 12th October, 1978 was successfully assailed by the landlady before the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority, vide its order dated 24th September, 1979, set aside the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and remanded the case back for decision afresh after inspecting the spot and affording an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence. This order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 2603 of 1979 in this Court, and the same was allowed by me on 18th December, 1979 in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Damodar and others v. Hari Singh and others, 1979 PLR 373, holding that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to remand the entire case to the Rent Controller for decision afresh. By the time this order was passed by me on 18th December, 1979, the Rent Controller, Shri A.S. Sodhi, had on 2nd November, 1979 inspected the spot and recorded an inspection note. None of the parties led any additional evidence in support of their respective claims. Before the Rent Controller could dispose of the case on merits in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Appellate authority on 24th September, 1979, the said remand order was itself set aside by this Court. In light of the order of this court dated 18th December, 1979, the Rent Controller sent back the file to the Appellate Authority after considering the merits of the case in the light of the inspection note recorded by Shri A.S. Sodhi, Rent Controller, on 2nd November, 1979 passed the impugned order.

5. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that the order of the Appellate Authority is patently illegal and erroneous in view of the fact that the said Authority has drawn some inference and assumptions from the evidence on record which are unsustainable in law and has also based its conclusion primarily on the inspection note recorded by Shri A.S. Sodhi, Rent Controller, on 2nd November, 1979, which evidence has to be taken as non-estor non-exitent in view of the order of this Court dated 18th December, 1979. In short, the submission is that once the remand order passed by the Appellate Authority had been quashed, any thing done or the evidence recorded in pursuance of that remand order has to be ignored and cannot be taken notice of. To me, the submission of the learned counsel, appears to be full of merit. It is patent from a reading of the order of the Appellate Author