Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Rent Appellate Authority’s Remand Order; Holds Amendment Application Must Be Decided and Appellate Authority Has No Power of Remand

Case Name: Ashok Kumar and Another v. Meera @ Meera Sharma

Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026

Citation: CR-6775-2019

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Rent Appellate Authority remanding the ejectment matter back to the Rent Controller without deciding the tenants’ application for amendment. The Court held that once liberty had been granted by the High Court to file an amendment application, the Appellate Authority was duty-bound to decide the same by a reasoned order. The Court further held that the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act has no jurisdiction to remand the case for a fresh decision and must itself adjudicate the appeal on merits.

Summary: The revision arose out of prolonged rent control litigation between the parties. The respondent–landlord had filed an ejectment petition, during the pendency of which the petitioner–tenants moved an application for amendment. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition on 29 November 2013 without deciding the amendment application. Appeals and cross-revisions followed, resulting in the Appellate Authority remanding the matter back to the Rent Controller.

Subsequently, this remand order itself was challenged before the High Court. By a common order dated 23 October 2018, the High Court set aside the remand and specifically granted liberty to the tenants to file an application for amendment before the Appellate Authority. Pursuant thereto, the tenants filed the amendment application. However, by order dated 26 September 2019, the Appellate Authority again set aside the ejectment order and remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller without deciding the amendment application.

The tenants challenged this order contending that it violated the liberty granted by the High Court and was contrary to settled law. The landlord argued that since no specific order was passed on the amendment application, it should be deemed to have been dismissed.

The High Court rejected the landlord’s contention and held that an application, once filed, must be expressly adjudicated upon and cannot be deemed dismissed by implication. The Court further relied upon the authoritative Division Bench judgment in Raghu Nath Jalota v. Romesh Duggal, which conclusively held that the Appellate Authority under the Rent Act has no express or implied power to remand the entire matter for fresh decision. The Appellate Authority is required to decide the appeal itself and may, if necessary, call for further inquiry, but cannot abdicate its statutory function by remanding the case.

In view of these settled principles, the High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable.

Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed. The matter was remanded to the successor Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after first adjudicating the amendment application, and in strict conformity with the law laid down in Raghu Nath Jalota v. Romesh Duggal.