' This S. A. O. Is directed against the order of learned Additionaq District Judge dated 30th September, 1976 whereby accepting the appeal h 4 remanded the case to the Rent Controller to dispose of the ejectment petition on merits in accordance with law.
2. The sole grievance being made by the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that instead of remanding the case, the matter should have been finally disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge himself because according to the case of the appellant, the respondent had no locus standi on account of P. T. O. Being cancelled. I find no substance in this submission for the simple reason that jurisdiction conferred on the Courts is to find out the truth and in search of truth where the justice so warrants, remand in the circumstances would be fully justified. Nothing stated in the order of learned Additional District Judge] is to work to the prejudice of the appellant for the simple reason that the remand order clearly states that the Rent Controller shall dispose of eviction application afresh on merits in accordance with law. All the pleas that the learned counsel would like to raise before me, he can raise before the trial Court.
3. In view of the peculiar position of the case, there is no justification for my interference in this second appeal. It lacks merits. However, the learned counsel for respondent at this stage wishes to raise protest that the appellant is a tenant who is perpetuating himself since 1960 and this will be negation of requirements of law if this matter is not disposed of within three months. I find substance in this request. I would accordingly direct the Rent Controller to whom the matter is entrusted by the learned Senior Civil Judge to dispose of this matter finally within a period of three months and submit a report to this Court after compliance. This S. A.
0. Stands dismissed with no order as to costs.