C.R.No.1646 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.1646 of 20111 Date of decision:3.10.2011 Smt.Prabha Sehgal ` ...Petitioner vs Shri Subhash Sahoonja ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Pooja Arora Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This judgment will dispose of two revision petitions bearing No.1646 and 1649 of 2011 as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. However, the facts are being taken from C.R.No.1646 of 2011. This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 9.12.2010 of the Appellate Authority,Patiala, whereby in an appeal filed on behalf of the respondent/tenant against the order of his eviction dated 4.12.2008, has remanded the case to the Rent Controller for deciding the ejectment petition afresh . Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that the Appellate Authority on an application filed by the tenant-respondent for leading additional evidence, vide impugned order framed an additional issue to the following effect:- 5-A. Whether the entire premises used under the name and style of Handiman's Beer Bar and Restaurant which was depicted as shop No.13 & 14 are one and indivisible unit, if so its effect ? OPR C.R.No.1646 of 2011 2 And remanded the case back to the Rent Controller for fresh decision. Noticing the contentions of the learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner, this Court passed the following order:- “ This is a revision at the instance of the landlord in which it is contended that the tenant, after having been ordered to vacate the demised premises by the learned Rent Controller, filed appeal in which two applications were filed, one for amendment of the written statement and another for leading additional evidence. Both the applications were allowed on the same day by the learned Appellate Authority and in pursuance thereof, the written statement was amended and some documents were tendered in additional evidence. Now the present application has been filed in order to examine some witnesses. In this application, there was no prayer for casting an additional issue which has been done by the learned Appellate Authority and remanded the case back to the learned Rent Controller for the purpose of its decision. Notice of motion for 04.04.2011. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant could not dispute the law settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raghu Nath Jalota v.Romesh Duggal and another, AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 188, wherein it has been held that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to remand the whole case to the Controller for fresh decision. However, the Appellate Authority, in its discretion is entitled to make such further inquiry under section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 either himself or through Controller and thus in appropriate cases if the Appellate Authority so desires, the matter be sent to the Controller for recording the finding to C.R.No.1646 of 2011 3 that limited extent. In view of the authoritative law laid down by the aforesaid authority, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of remand is modified to the extent that instead of deciding the whole case a fresh, the Rent Controller will record a finding on issue No.5-A, as framed by the Appellate Authority reproduced above after allowing the parties opportunities to lead evidence as per the remand order. The Rent Controller will send the report within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 31.10.2011. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge October 3, 2011 rk C.R.No.1646 of 2011 4 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.1649 of 20111 Date of decision:3.10.2011 Smt.Urmil Kaushal and another ` ...Petitioners vs Shri Subhash Sahoonja ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Pooja Arora Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see Civil Revision No.1646 of 2011. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge October 3, 2011 rk