S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The respondent herein, had filed an application under Sections 10 and 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for directing the respondents, in the main petition, for making necessary repairs of the demised premises fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint or in the alternative, the applicant be allowed to make necessary repairs and deduct the costs from the rent. It was pleaded that the respondent had originally filed an application against Kundan Lal, who died during the pendency of the application and his legal representatives were brought on the record by order dated 17.01.1985. The respondent claimed himself to be a tenant in the premises in question under the petitioners for more than three years at the time of the filing of the application. It was further the case of the respondents that the petitioners in order to harass the respondent, removed bricks from the roof of the demised premises which resulted in leakage of rainy water and caused huge loss to the respondent-applicant.
2. The petitioners denied the allegations made by the respondent-tenant. It was alleged that the building in dispute had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as it is more than 70 years old.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues on 26.10.1982:-
1. Whether the application is liable to be allowed? OPA
2. Whether the application has not been filed by proper and competent person?
OPR
3. Relief.
4. After the evidence was duly led, which included expert witnesses, the learned Rent Controller come to the conclusion that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
5. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the respondent. It was held that the partnership firm being unregistered, could not have filed the application for repairs. No evidence had been produced by the applicant to prove that the firm has been registered. Consequently, it was held that the application is not maintainable.
6. The respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application to withdraw the original application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act, on the ground that since it has been held that the application was maintainable, it had become infructuous. This application was allowed by the appellate authority by order dated 1.1.1987. The appeal was accepted and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, was set aside.
7. In the grounds of revision before this Court, it is stated that the learned Rent Controller having given the findings on merits of each issue, the application for withdrawal was not maintainable.
8. After considering the entire matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that the appellate authority has erroneously permitted the original application to be withdrawn at the appellate stage. The learned Rent Controller after due appreciation of entire evidence had given definite findings of fact in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. To permit the applicant to withdraw the original application at the appellate stage, would cause prejudice to the case set up by the petitioners, which has been accepted by the learned Rent Controller.
9. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. The order passed bythe learned appellate authority, Patiala, dated 12.1.1987, is hereby set aside and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib, on 14.1.1986, is restored.No costs.