Civil Revision No.946 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No.946 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 Sheela Devi and another ....Petitioners Versus Prem Nath Khanna ...Respondent 2. Civil Revision No.947 of 2010 Ram Karan ....Petitioner Versus Prem Nath Khanna ...Respondent 3. Civil Revision No.948 of 2010 Ram Deen ....Petitioner Versus Prem Nath Khanna ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord had filed a plea for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenants on an averment that the tenanted premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In an appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant, a plea was raised that material prejudice had been caused inasmuch no Civil Revision No.946 of 2010 -2- opportunity of adducing evidence had been afforded to the petitioner/tenant after the issues came to be reframed. The confusion occurred, as per the plea raised therein, because the learned Rent Controller was seized off a bunch of cases. The plea raised was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority which made the following observations in the context:- “The order under appeal is not only against the provisions of law, but appears to have been passed very hastily, without granting opportunity of being heard to the parties. The tenants – appellants have materially been prejudiced by such approach of the learned Rent Controller. In view of the manner, mode of illegality of the judgment, it is a fit case, where the order may be set aside and the case may be remanded back to the learned Rent Controller, but as the present is an appeal u/sec. 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949, the Appellate Authority cannot invoke the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23A of CPC, as per the settled principle of law and cannot remand the case, but can only call for the report. For such opinon, I draw support from the pronouncements of various Hon'ble High Courts, reported as 1998(1) RCR (Rent) page 288 (Banarsi Dass Vs. Smt. Jeeto), 1973 All India Rent Control Journal page 564 (C. Kuttappa Nair and another v. S.S.A. Shahul Hameed and others), 2005(1) R.C.R. (Rent) page 482 (Xavier Enenual vs. Rattan Raj Kumar and another), 1999(1) R.C.R. Civil Revision No.946 of 2010 -3- (Rent) page 55 (Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kewal Krishan Kumar), 2003(1) R.C.R. (Rent) page 538 (Puran Singh Vs. Mahant Bhagwan Dass), 1993(2) Rent Control Reporter page 470 (State Bank of Patiala vs. Zulquadar Singh and others), 1996(4) Simla Law Journal page 2905 (Kulwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Chander), 1991 Haryana Rent Reporter page 81 (Smt. Nanohri Devi of Charkhi Dadri Vs. Chander Bhan and another) 1979(2) Rernt Lar Reporter 783 (Mandir Dharamsala Devi Sahai Vs. Chuni Lal) and 2005(1) Rent Control Reporter page 676 (Amit Chand Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar). Thus, the learned Rent Controller is directed to hold an inquiry after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, which obviously includes opportunity of leading evidence on the issues and then to submit his report on the newly framed issues on 14.09.2006.” Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, has an apprehension that adoption of the course by the learned Appellate Authority would lead to denial of a right to appeal to the petitioner-tenant. The apprehension in the mind of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would appear to be misconceived. The reasons therefor are as under:- An out-right remand of a rent appeal is not envisioned under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In that view of things, the only option available to the learned Appellate Authority Civil Revision No.946 of 2010 -4- was to grant the impugned order, particularly when it noticed that the proper trial had not been held by the learned Rent Controller. The mere continued pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Authority would not amount to denial of a right to appeal to the petitioner. In terms of the order granted by the learned Appellate Authority, the parties(including the petitioner-tenant) shall have to be afforded an opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their respective stances. An opportunity of hearing shall, thereafter, be afforded to them and a report under the relevant issues shall follow. If the report is supportive of the stance adopted by the petitioner- tenants they would too glad to withdraw the pending appeal. If, however, the report is to their detriment, they would be inclined to obtain the leave of the learned Appellate Authority to amend the grounds of appeal so as to be able to assail the view obtained by the learned Rent Controller in the report and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof. Either way, there is no warrant for the proposition that a right of appeal will be denied to either party. The petition shall stand negatived accordingly in limine. March 16, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE