203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-879-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.09.2025 LAJPAT RAI MALHOTRA ..Petitioner Versus ATAM DEV SOOD (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ANR ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Bhavna Kapur Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nikhil Sabherwal, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.

Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, whereby Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the trial Court.

Submissions of learned counsel for the parties:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority has no power to remand the matter as per Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short ‘1949 Act’). She further contends that respondent No.3 never filed written statement and he never agitated for the same.

3. She further contends that appeal has been filed by respondent No.1 and 2 and not by respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contentions relies upon the following judgments:-

i) Raghu Nath Jalota Vs. Romesh Duggal and another, Civil Revision No.965 of 1976, decided on 01.08.1979;

ii) Ashok Kumar Vs. Sood Sabha, Civil Revision No.6378 of 2018, decided on 10.11.2022;

iii) Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs. Ramji Lal, Civil Revision No.334 of 1980, decided on 23.03.1981.

5. She therefore, contends that the present petition be allowed and order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents denies the contentions of the petitioner on facts, whereas, are not able to rebut the power of Appellate Authority to remand the matter as per the provisions of Section 15(3) of 1949 Act.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file of this case with their able assistance.

8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that Appellate Authority has set aside the order under appeal in toto and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with the direction to give an opportunity to respondent No.3 to file written statement and thereafter, frame fresh issues and then give effective opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions in case they want and then pass a fresh order.

9. The only question involved in the present revision petition is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to remand the matter to the Rent Controller. The answer to this is in negative.

10. It would be apposite here to reproduce Section 15(3) of 1949 Act:-

“15. Vesting of appellate authority on officers by State Government.

(3) The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after sending for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller.”

11. A perusal of the above shows that the scope of remand is not within the power of Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is mandatorily to decide the appeal after calling for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller.

12. The above referred to provision is very clear regarding the power of the Appellate Authority to remand the matter. The Appellate Authority has no power to remand the matter to the Rent Controller rather it has power to decide the appeal after making inquiry himself or through the Controller.

13. The language of the above referred to Section 15(3) of 1949 Act itself reads the intention of the framers of the statute and if the intention of the framers of statute was to be otherwise it could have been specifically mentioned in Section 15(3) of 1949 Act regardi