268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision : 13.01.2026

ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR .... Petitioners

VERSUS

MEERA @ MEERA SHARMA .... Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority insofar as the application for amendment, which was filed before the Appellate Authority, was not decided and the matter was remanded back to the Rent Controller for deciding

the same afresh.

2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that the respondent- landlord filed an ejectment petition. During the pendency of the ejectment petition an application for amendment was filed by the petitioner-tenants which remained pending and was not decided by the Rent Controller. Vide order dated 29.11.2013 the ejectment petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner-tenants. Vide order dated 04.12.2014 the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the Rent

Controller. Once the matter was remanded back to the Rent Controller, the

Rent Controller vide order dated 16.01.2015 rejected the application for amendment. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2015 rejecting the application for amendment, the petitioner-tenants herein filed civil revision being CR-1479-2015. The respondent-landlord aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority preferred a civil revision being CR-782-2015. Both the said civil revisions being CR-1479-2015 and CR-782- 2015 were disposed off vide a common order dated 23.10.2018. CR-782-2015 was allowed and the remand order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside. Since the remand order itself was set aside, the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 16.01.2015 was held to have automatically been set aside rendering CR-1479-2015 infructuous. The petitioner herein was given the liberty to file an application for amendment before the Appellate Authority. The matter once again was taken up by the Appellate Authority which vide order dated 26.09.2019 has set aside the ejectment order dated 29.11.2013 and remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenants challenging the order dated 26.09.2019 alleging that the said order is bad in law as the same has been passed without deciding the application for amendment, which liberty was given to the petitioner-tenants by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenants would contend that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in law inasmuch as while deciding the matter, the application for amendment, which was filed after the order passed by this Court on 23.10.2018, was not decided.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would contend that since the application for amendment has not been dealt with specifically, the same would be deemed to have been dismissed and no specific order was required to be passed when the matter was being remanded back.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case this Court, while deciding civil revisions being CR-1479-2015 and CR-782-2015 on 23.10.2018, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority remanding the matter back and had given liberty to the petitioner-tenants to file an application for amendment before the Appellate Authority. Admittedly the application was not decided by the Appellate Authority as is apparent from the order dated 26.09.2019. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord that since there is no specific order hence the application for amendment would be deemed to have been dismissed cannot be accepted. Once the application was filed, the Appellate Authority was required to deal with the same accepting or rejecting it. Further still, the Appella