Rajnish Gupta and Another Vs Nitin Singla

T h e present revision petition h a s been filed by the petitioners challenging t h e impugned order dated 29. 0 7.2025 passed by the learn e d Appellate Aut h ority, Chandigarh whereby the a pplication filed by the petitioners for amendmen t of grounds of appeal has been d ismissed. 2. In brief, the facts are that a rent petition under Section 13 of t h e East Punjab U rban Rent Restriction Act, 19 4 9 (hereinafter referred to as t h e Rent Act, 194 9 ) as extended to Chandigarh was filed by the respondent-landlo r d

¶21

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶22

CR-5484-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶23

for eviction of the petitioners-tenants from th e demised premises i.e. complete ground floor o f SCO No.11, Sector 23D, Cha n digarh. In the said rent petitio n , vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the lea r ned Rent Controller, Chandigar h , provisional re n t of the tenanted premises was assessed. Against the said order dated 19.09.2 0 23, Rent Appeal No.25 of 2 0 24 was filed by the petitione r s, which was d i smissed by the learned Ap p ellate Court vide order dat e d 18.03.2025. S ince the rent so provisionall y assessed by the learned Re n t Controller wa s not paid by the petitioners-te n ants within the time stipulated, eviction order dated 19.10.2023 was passed by the learned Rent Controller against which R ent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was filed. Both the aforesaid appe a ls were dismisse d by the learned Appellate Aut h ority i.e. Rent Appeal No.25 o f 2024 was dism i ssed on merits and Rent Appea l No.26 of 2024 was dismissed o n the ground of d elay. Against the aforesaid ord e r dated 18.03.2025 passed by t h e learned Appell a te Authority, a Civil Revision b earing No.2145 of 2025 was fil e d r whereby orde r s dated 19.09.2023 passed b y the learned Rent Controll e regarding prov i sional assessment of rent; orde r dated 18.03.2025 passed by t h e learned Appe l late Authority whereby Ren t Appeal No.25 of 2024 w a s dismissed; ev i ction order dated 19.10.202 3 passed by the learned Re n t Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed b y the learned Appellate Authori t y n in Rent Appea l No.26 of 2024, were challenge d . The aforesaid revision petiti o was decided b y this Court vide order dated 0 5 .04.2025 whereby on the requ e st of petitioners, the revision petition qua order s dated 19.09.2023 passed by t h e learned Rent C ontroller and order dated 1 8 .03.2025 passed by the learn e d Appellate Aut h ority in Rent Appeal No.25 of 2 024 was dismissed as withdra w n with liberty to pursue their remedy separately in accordance with law; where a s

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶25

CR-5484-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶26

order dated 1 8 .03.2025 passed by the lear n ed Appellate Authority in Re n t Appeal No.26 of 2024 was set aside while c o ndoning the delay of 17 days i n filing the said appeal and matter was remanded back to the learned Appell a te Authority to a d judicate it on merits, after heari n g learned counsel for the parti e s, preferably wit h in a period of four months fro m the date of communication o f a copy of the or d er. Thereafter, the petitioners f i led an application for amendme n t in grounds of appeal in Rent Appeal No.2 6 of 2024 whereby they soug h t challenge to o r der dated 19.09.2023 whereby the learned Rent Controller h a d assessed the p r ovisional rent and order dated 1 8.03.2025 passed by the learn e d Appellate Aut h ority vide which appeal filed a g ainst order dated 19.09.2023 w a s dismissed. Th e aforesaid application for ame n dment has been dismissed by t h e learned Appell a te Authority and hence, the rev i sion petition.

¶27

L e arned counsel for petitioners s ubmitted that while passing t h e impugned orde r , the learned Appellate Authori t y has completely ignored the f a ct that failure to t ake any objection in the groun d s/memorandum of appeal can b e rectified at an y stage by way of an amendme n t, in view of provisions of Order 41 Rule 3 CP C , as it is settled proposition of l a w that general principles of Co d e of Civil Proce d ure, 1908 apply in regulation a nd determination of procedure t o be followed b y authorities while adjudicating under the provision of the Re n t Act, 1949. It was further submitted that a t the time of considering t h e application, m e rits of the amendment cannot b e considered and it is mandato r y on courts to a llow all amendments which a re necessary for the purpose o f determining re a l questions in controversy bet w een parties. Further, the learn e d Appellate Aut h ority has misread and wrongl y interpreted the judgment pass e d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal 2011 (3)

¶28

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶29

CR-5484-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶30

RCR (Civil) 247. In the said judgment, t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court h a s n categorically h e ld that tenant can challenge th e correctness of provisional rent i appeal arising from the final order. It is a lso argued that the order dat e d 19.09.2023 w h ereby the provisional rent i s assessed by the learned Re n t Controller is a n interlocutory order, which ha s been merged into final order o f eviction and t h erefore, cease to exist, thus, t h ere is no bar in challenging t h e same in the a p peal filed against the final o r der of eviction. In this regard, n reliance is pla c ed upon the judgments passed b y the Hon’ble Supreme Court i Prem Chandra Agrawal Vs. Financial Crop. (2009) 11 SCC 479 and National BalBhawan and another Vs. Union of India (2003) 9 SCC 671 as well as by a Coordinate B e nch of this Court in Gopi Krishan Khanna Vs. M/s Khadi Ashram and another 2014 (4) PLR 834. F u rther reliance is placed upon t h e judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme C ourt in Prithi Pal Singh and another Vs. Amrik Singh and others 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 327 to contend that merits of the a v erments sought to be incorpora t ed by way of amendment are not to be judged a t the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, as the domina n t purpose of the a mendment is to minimize the litigation.

¶31

N o tice of motion.

¶32

M r . Rajat Dogra, Advocate, who has filed the caveat on behalf o f the respondent , accepts notice for the respond e nt and submits that the impugn e d order dated 29.07.2025 is a well-reasoned ord e r passed by the learned Appell a te Authority and is based on the correct apprec i ation of facts and law, thus, t h e same does not r equire any interference by way of instant revision petition. 6. H a ving heard learned counsel for t he parties and perusing the paper book with thei r able assistance as well as ca s e laws cited, this Court finds n o

¶33

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶34

CR-5484-2025 (O&M) -5-

¶35

merit in the ar g uments raised by learned couns e l for the petitioners. Admittedl y , two separate a ppeals were filed by the pe t itioners against the order dat e d 19.09.2023 w h ereby the provisional rent w a s assessed by the learned Re n t Controller and the final order of eviction date d 19.10.2023 was passed on no n - payment of re n t so assessed provisionally. T he order dated 19.09.2023 w a s challenged in R ent Appeal No.25 of 2024 an d the order dated 19.10.2023 w a s challenged in R ent Appeal No.26 of 2024. B o th these appeals were dismiss e d by the learne d Appellate Authority vide or d er dated 18.03.2025. All the s e orders were ch a llenged by petitioners before t h is Court in C.R. No.2143 of 20 2 5 wherein vide o r der dated 05.04.2025 passed b y this Court, revision petition q u a orders dated 1 9.09.2023 passed by the lea r ned Rent Controller and dat e d 18.03.2025 pa s sed by the learned Appellate A uthority, on request of learn e d counsel for p e titioners, was dismissed as w ithdrawn with liberty to purs u e remedy in acc o rdance with law and the orde r dated 18.03.2025 passed by t h e r learned Appel l ate Authority dismissing the a ppeal against the eviction ord e dated 19.10.20 2 3 on the ground of delay was set aside, allowing condondati o n of delay of 17 d ays in filing the appeal and the appeal was remanded back to t h e learned Appell a te Authority to decide the same on merit. It is in this eventualit y , an application for amendment was moved b y the petitioners herein seeki n g amendment in the grounds of appeal bearing R ent Appeal No.26 of 2024 to t h e effect of chall e nging the order dated 19.09.2 0 23 whereby provisional rent w a s assessed by t h e learned Rent Controller, w h ich has been dismissed by t h e learned Appell a te Authority and rightly so. A dmittedly, Rent Appeal No.25 o f 2024 was file d by the petitioners against ord e r dated 19.09.2023 assessing t h e provisional re n t by the learned Rent Controll e r, which stood dismissed by t h e

¶36

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶37

CR-5484-2025 (O&M) -6-

¶38

learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.03.2025. These orders we r e further challen g ed in the revision petition before this Court along with order dated 18.03.20 2 5 passed in appeal preferred a g ainst final order of eviction dat e d 19.10.2023, ho w ever, the petitioners for the reasons best known to them soug h t to withdraw t h e revision petition qua orders d ated 19.09.2023 and 18.03.20 2 5 whereby provi s ional rent was assessed and a p peal against the said assessme n t was dismissed, with liberty to pursue their rem e dy separately in accordance wi t h law. Once an o r der has been challenged in app e al and the appellate authority h a s decided the ap p eal as well, the same order can n ot again be challenged before t h e same authorit y . If the argument of learne d counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then they are seeking to challenge t h e order dated 18.03.2025 pass e d by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandiga r h before the very same authori t y in another app e al filed against the final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023 b y way of seekin g amendment in the grounds o f appeal. Once final order dat e d 18.03.2025 ha s been passed by the learne d Appellate Authority in appeal preferred by p e titioners against order dated 1 9 .09.2023, it has become funct u s officio and its v ery own order cannot be sough t to be set aside in another appeal pending consi d eration, which arose from th e same rent proceedings. W h at petitioners can n ot do directly, they are trying to do the same indirectly, whi c h cannot be per m itted. 7. T h e settled proposition of law th a t once a final order is passed, a ll earlier interim orders merge into the final o r ders and interim orders cease t o exist, is not di s puted. In fact, if the same analogy is applied in the present ca s e then the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed b y the learned R e nt Controller has merged into the final order of eviction dat e d

¶39

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶40

CR-5484-2025 (O&M) -7-

¶41

19.10.2023, w h ich order has already been ch a llenged in Rent Appeal No.26 o f 2024 and thus, is not required to be challeng e d by way of application seeki n g amendment in the grounds of appeal. Rather, the actual position is that in t h e absence of an y stay by a higher forum or b e ing set aside as such in appe a l, operation of o r der dated 19.09.2023 does no t cease to exist and it is still i n operation and t he petitioners are bound to pa y the rent as assessed vide ord e r dated 19.09.2 0 23 even during the pendenc y of appeal before the learn e d Appellate Aut h ority. Therefore, the contentio n of learned counsel for petitioners that interim or d er dated 19.09.2023 cease to e x ist upon passing of final order o f eviction dated 1 9.10.2023 falls flat on the grou n d.

¶42

F u rthermore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for t h e petitioners in Harjit Singh Uppal’s case (supra) has rightly been distinguish e d n by the learned A ppellate Authority as not appl i cable to facts of present case. I the said case, t h e tenant did not challenge the o rder of fixing provisional rent i n appeal wherea s in the present case, the order was challenged in appeal, whi c h was dismisse d and the revision petition fi l ed against the same was al s o dismissed as w i thdrawn with liberty to avail se p arate remedy in accordance wi t h law, meaning t hereby, order dated 18.03.202 5 passed by the learned Appell a te Authority in a p peal against the order dated 19. 0 9.2023, still holds field till toda y . Further reliance upon the judgment passed b y the Hon’ble Supreme Court i n Prithi Pal Singh (supra) also does not save t h e cause of petitioners, as in t h is case amendme n t was allowed as new ground w as sought to be added and not t h e new relief, ho w ever, in the present case new r elief i.e. challenge to order dat e d 19.09.2023 has been sought, which was not the r e earlier.

¶43

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶44

CR-5484-2025 (O&M) -8-

¶45

In view of the aforesaid facts and c ircumstances, this Court finds n o ground to inter f ere with order dated 29.07.202 5 passed by the learned Appellate Authority and t he same is affirmed. The insta n t revision petition is dismissed. 10. P e nding misc. application(s), if an y , also stand disposed of.

¶46

( AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ) JUDGE

¶47

August 27, 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶48

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Rajnish Gupta and Another v. Nitin Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Gupta and Another v. Nitin Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarsem Singh and Others Vs Tarlochan Kaur and Others

Satish Kumar and Others Vs Gram Panchayat Village Chaura Khalsa

Ramphal Vs Rajkumar

Municipal Committee Jhajjar through Its Executive Officer Vs Gordhan Dass and Others

Pal Singh Since Deceased Thorugh His Lrs Vs Varinder Singh and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Surinder Mohan