IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6588 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 08, 2010 Raja Ram …Petitioner Versus Seth Nainsukh Dass Sukhram Dass Parvarak Dharmarath Trust (Retd.) and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. S.D. Anand, J. The learned Appellate Authority did not dispose of the appeal on merits but ordered its remand, directing the learned Rent Controller to hold further enquiry in the context. The essential grievance of the petitioner herein is with regard to the invalidity of the impugned order vide which the learned Appellate Authority ordered the remand of the matter to the learned Rent Controller. In support of the averment that the learned Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to remand the matter under Rent Act, the learned C.R. No. 6588 of 2008 counsel relies upon [1992 HRR] 391 – Smt. Satya Wati Jain of Ambala Cantt. Vs. Shiv Kant Ghair & Ors, [1992 HRR] 89 – Hari Ram vs. Firm Ram Parkash, [HRR 1993] 66 – Satya Devi and others vs. K.K. Yadav, [HRR 1991] 571 – Harbans Lal vs. Sham Dass and another, and 1993 (2) Rent Control Reporter, 470 – State Bank of Patiala at Yamunanagar vs. Zulquadar Singh and others. The judicial pronouncements aforementioned are all supportive of the view pleaded on behalf of the petitioner herein. In the light thereof, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The matter shall be listed on 22.02.2010 before the learned Appellate Authority for its decision afresh on merits thereof. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority on the date fixed. Disposed of accordingly. February 8, 2010 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 2