Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - This is revision petition by tenant - Subhash Chander filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act).

2. Respondents/landlords filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of tenant/petitioner from demised property. Learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide judgement dated 20.10.2007 allowed the ejectment petition and ordered eviction of the tenant. Tenant filed appeal against the ejectment order. The same was initially dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide judgement dated 07.08.2008. Tenant filed Civil Revision Petition bearing C.R. No. 6192 of 2008. The same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2010 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision of the appeal. The Appellate Authority again dismissed the appeal vide judgement dated 24.05.2010 against which the tenant filed C.R. No. 4269 of 2010. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2011 and the matter was again remanded to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority again vide judgement dated 23.08.2011 has dismissed the tenant’s appeal. Tenant has, therefore, filed the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Appellate Authority for amendment of his written statement, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the tenant/petitioner without deciding the said amendment application and, therefore, the matter is required to be remanded again to the Appellate Authority.

5. Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention by submitting that in view of limited remand by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2011 requiring the Appellate Authority to give categoric finding on the issues involved by taking into consideration evidence led by both the parties, the Appellate Authority could not even entertain the aforesaid amendment application. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on various judgements, namely, Budhilal Deviprasad and another Vs. Jagannathdas Bajrangdar, AIR, 1963 (Madhya Pradesh), 344, Chandanmai Vs. Rawatmal, AIR, 1980 (Rajasthan), 139, Chote Lal Vs. Kalyan Prasad, AIR, 1987 (Rajasthan), 75 and K. Veerabasappa Vs. The Court of District Judge at Chitradurga and others, AIR, 1979 (Karnataka), 40. It was also contended that even this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can decide the amendment application.

6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

7. Perusal of orders dated 19.04.2010 and 09.03.2011 passed by this Court in earlier revision petitions of the tenant reveals that on both occasions, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority by open ended remand orders and not by limited or restricted direction. The appeal was restored to the files of the Appellate Authority to be decided in accordance with law. Consequently, it cannot be said that it was limited or restricted remand of the appeal to the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the Appellate Authority was not entitled to entertain the amendment application. Judgements in the cases of Budhilal Deviprasad and another (supra), Chandanmai (supra), Chote Lal (supra) and K. Veerabasappa (supra) cited by counsel for respondents have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand because in the instant case, remand order dated 09.03.2011 passed by this Court was open ended remand order and not limited or restricted remand order. However, it is undisputed that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without deciding the application of petitioner/tenant for amendment of written statement. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to remand the appeal to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after