The status of the petitioner to the suit land is that of a landlord whereas the respondent is a tenant.
The petitioner filed suit for ejectment against the respondent on the; ground of default in payment of share of produce. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 8-1-1987. The petitioner preferred, an appeal, before the AC/Collector, who vide his order dated 30-1-1988 accepted the appeal on the ground that relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant stood proved and the respondent/tenant has not been able to produce any documentary proof to the effect that rent is being paid by him to the petitioner. Respondent, challenged that order before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order of 18-4-1988 remanded it on the plea that suit for recovery of produce and the ejectment suit be decided simultaneously. On remand, the Collector on 13-8-1988 decided the case in favour of the petitioner. That order was again assailed by the respondent before the Additional Commissioner who vide impugned order dated 18-6-1989 again remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision with the observation that earlier directions of his Court were not carried out in letter and spirit. Hence this revision petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.
The relationship amongst the parties as a landlord and tenant already stood established by the order of the Collector dated 30-1-1988. The case was referred back by the Additional Commissioner to decide the case of ejectment alongwith suit for recovery of produce. It is evident from the record that the Collector did comply with the directions contained in remand order as both the above- referred cases were decided on one day i.e. 13-8-1988. It is immaterial that decree was not drawn by the Collector on that very date. It was a voidable omission which cannot be allowed to stand in the way of dispensing justice. The fact remains that both the suits were decided simultaneously by the Collector. As such the Additional Commissioner has erred in law by holding that earlier directions of his Court were not complied with. In the absence of any material irregularity the Additional Commissioner was not justified to open another gate of litigation by remanding the case. In view of this the impugned order being bad in law is not sustainable. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 18-6-1989.