CR-5484-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 120 Rajnish Gupta and another Nitin Singla CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Udayveer Singh, Advocate for the respondent *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. C.M No.16182 Application is allowed Exemption from filing certified/typed copies of the impugned order and Annexures P C.R. No.5484 of 2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority for amendment of grounds of appeal has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts are that East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act, 1949) as extended to Chandigarh was filed by the respondent 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Reserved on:25.08.2025 Pronounced on: Rajnish Gupta and another Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Udayveer Singh, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. 16182-CII of 2025 Application is allowed as prayed for. Exemption from filing certified/typed copies of the impugned order and Annexures P-1 to P-20 is granted and the same are taken on record. of 2025 (O&M) The present revision petition has been filed nging the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Authority, Chandigarh whereby the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of grounds of appeal has been dismissed. In brief, the facts are that a rent petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act, 1949) as extended to Chandigarh was filed by the respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5484-2025 (O&M) Reserved on:25.08.2025 Pronounced on:27.08.2025 ... Petitioners ... Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL as prayed for. Exemption from filing certified/typed copies of the impugned order 20 is granted and the same are taken on record. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners nging the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned , Chandigarh whereby the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of grounds of appeal has been dismissed. a rent petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act, 1949) as extended to Chandigarh was filed by the respondent-landlord Exemption from filing certified/typed copies of the impugned order by the petitioners nging the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned , Chandigarh whereby the application filed by the petitioners a rent petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the landlord PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5484-2025 (O&M) for eviction of the petitioners ground floor of SCO No.11, Sector 23D, Chandigarh. In the said rent petition, vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller provisional rent of the tenanted premises was assessed. Against the said orde dated 19.09.2023, Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 18.03.2025. Since the rent Controller was not paid by the petitio eviction order dated against which Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was filed. Both the aforesaid appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority 2024 was dismissed on merits and Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground of delay. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, a Civil Revision bearing No.2145 of 2025 was filed whereby orders dated regarding provisional assessment of rent; order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed; eviction order da Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was decided by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2025 whereby on the req of petitioners, the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue 2025 (O&M) -2- for eviction of the petitioners-tenants from the demised pre ground floor of SCO No.11, Sector 23D, Chandigarh. In the said rent petition, vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller provisional rent of the tenanted premises was assessed. Against the said orde dated 19.09.2023, Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 18.03.2025. Since the rent so provisionally assessed by the learned Rent Controller was not paid by the petitioners-tenant eviction order dated 19.10.2023 was passed by the learned Rent Controller against which Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was filed. Both the aforesaid appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority 2024 was dismissed on merits and Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground of delay. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, a Civil Revision bearing No.2145 of 2025 was filed by orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller regarding provisional assessment of rent; order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed; eviction order dated 19.10.2023 pas Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024, were challenged. was decided by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2025 whereby on the req the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue their remedy separately in accordance with law; whereas tenants from the demised premises i.e. complete ground floor of SCO No.11, Sector 23D, Chandigarh. In the said rent petition, vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, provisional rent of the tenanted premises was assessed. Against the said orde dated 19.09.2023, Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated provisionally assessed by the learned Rent tenants within the time stipulated 19.10.2023 was passed by the learned Rent Controller against which Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was filed. Both the aforesaid appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority i.e. Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed on merits and Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground of delay. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, a Civil Revision bearing No.2145 of 2025 was filed 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller regarding provisional assessment of rent; order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was ed 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority were challenged. The aforesaid revision petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2025 whereby on the request the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn remedy separately in accordance with law; whereas mises i.e. complete ground floor of SCO No.11, Sector 23D, Chandigarh. In the said rent petition, Chandigarh, provisional rent of the tenanted premises was assessed. Against the said order dated 19.09.2023, Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated provisionally assessed by the learned Rent within the time stipulated, 19.10.2023 was passed by the learned Rent Controller against which Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was filed. Both the aforesaid appeals peal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed on merits and Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 was dismissed on the ground of delay. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, a Civil Revision bearing No.2145 of 2025 was filed 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller regarding provisional assessment of rent; order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was sed by the learned Rent Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority The aforesaid revision petition uest the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn remedy separately in accordance with law; whereas PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5484-2025 (O&M) order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority Appeal No.26 of 2024 filing the said Authority to adjudicate it on merits, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of the order. in grounds of challenge to order dated assessed the provisional rent and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Autho dismissed. The aforesaid application for amendment has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority and hence, the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that impugned order that failure to take any objection in the grounds/memorandum of appeal can be rectified at any stage by way of an amendment 41 Rule 3 CPC, as it is settled p of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply in regulation and determination of procedure to be followed by authorities while adjudicating under the provision of the Rent Act, 1949. It was f application, merits of the a on courts to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between pa Appellate Authority by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 (O&M) -3- order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority Appeal No.26 of 2024 was set aside while condoning the delay of 17 days in appeal and matter was remanded back Authority to adjudicate it on merits, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an applicatio in grounds of appeal in Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 whereby they sought order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the learned Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority vide which appeal filed against order dated 19.09.2023 was dismissed. The aforesaid application for amendment has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority and hence, the revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that impugned order, the learned Appellate Authority has completely ignored the fact that failure to take any objection in the grounds/memorandum of appeal can be rectified at any stage by way of an amendment Rule 3 CPC, as it is settled proposition of law that general principles of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply in regulation and determination of procedure to be followed by authorities while adjudicating under the provision of the Rent . It was further submitted that at the time of considering the application, merits of the amendment cannot be considered and it is mandatory on courts to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between pa Appellate Authority has misread and wrongly interpreted the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal 2011 (3) order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent was set aside while condoning the delay of 17 days in appeal and matter was remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority to adjudicate it on merits, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of a Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for amendment Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 whereby they sought 19.09.2023 whereby the learned Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned rity vide which appeal filed against order dated 19.09.2023 was dismissed. The aforesaid application for amendment has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority and hence, the revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that while passing the the learned Appellate Authority has completely ignored the fact that failure to take any objection in the grounds/memorandum of appeal can be rectified at any stage by way of an amendment, in view of provisions of Order osition of law that general principles of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply in regulation and determination of procedure to be followed by authorities while adjudicating under the provision of the Rent urther submitted that at the time of considering the mendment cannot be considered and it is mandatory on courts to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties. Further, the learned has misread and wrongly interpreted the judgment passed Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal 2011 (3) in Rent was set aside while condoning the delay of 17 days in to the learned Appellate Authority to adjudicate it on merits, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of a n for amendment Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 whereby they sought 19.09.2023 whereby the learned Rent Controller had assessed the provisional rent and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned rity vide which appeal filed against order dated 19.09.2023 was dismissed. The aforesaid application for amendment has been dismissed by the hile passing the the learned Appellate Authority has completely ignored the fact that failure to take any objection in the grounds/memorandum of appeal can be in view of provisions of Order osition of law that general principles of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply in regulation and determination of procedure to be followed by authorities while adjudicating under the provision of the Rent urther submitted that at the time of considering the mendment cannot be considered and it is mandatory on courts to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of rties. Further, the learned has misread and wrongly interpreted the judgment passed Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal 2011 (3) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5484-2025 (O&M) RCR (Civil) 247. categorically held that tenant can challenge the correctness of provisional rent in appeal arising from the final order. 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent is Controller is an interlocutory order, which has been merged into final order of eviction and therefore, cease to exist, thus, same in the appeal filed against the final order of eviction. In reliance is placed upon the judgment Prem Chandra Agrawal Vs. Financial Crop. (2009) 11 SCC BalBhawan and another Vs. Union of I Coordinate Bench of Ashram and another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another Vs. Amrik Singh and others merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, as the dominant purpose of the amendment is to minimize the litigation. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Raj the respondent, accepts notice for the respondent and submits that the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 is a well Authority and is based on the correct same does not require any interference by way of instant revision petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance as well as case laws cited, this C 2025 (O&M) -4- RCR (Civil) 247. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that tenant can challenge the correctness of provisional rent in appeal arising from the final order. It is also argued that the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent is Controller is an interlocutory order, which has been merged into final order of eviction and therefore, cease to exist, thus, there is no bar in challenging the same in the appeal filed against the final order of eviction. In reliance is placed upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Chandra Agrawal Vs. Financial Crop. (2009) 11 SCC BalBhawan and another Vs. Union of India (2003) 9 SCC Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gopi Krishan Khanna Vs. M/s Khadi Ashram and another 2014 (4) PLR 834. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another Vs. Amrik Singh and others 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 327 merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, as the dominant purpose of the amendment is to minimize the litigation. Notice of motion. Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate, who has filed the caveat on behalf of the respondent, accepts notice for the respondent and submits that the impugned rder dated 29.07.2025 is a well-reasoned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority and is based on the correct appreciation of facts and law, thus, the same does not require any interference by way of instant revision petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance as well as case laws cited, this C In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that tenant can challenge the correctness of provisional rent in It is also argued that the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent is assessed by the learned Rent Controller is an interlocutory order, which has been merged into final order of there is no bar in challenging the same in the appeal filed against the final order of eviction. In this regard, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Chandra Agrawal Vs. Financial Crop. (2009) 11 SCC 479 and National ndia (2003) 9 SCC 671 as well as by a Gopi Krishan Khanna Vs. M/s Khadi Further reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithi Pal Singh and 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 327 to contend that merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, as the dominant purpose of the amendment is to minimize the litigation. at Dogra, Advocate, who has filed the caveat on behalf of the respondent, accepts notice for the respondent and submits that the impugned reasoned order passed by the learned Appellate appreciation of facts and law, thus, the same does not require any interference by way of instant revision petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance as well as case laws cited, this Court finds no In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that tenant can challenge the correctness of provisional rent in It is also argued that the order dated assessed by the learned Rent Controller is an interlocutory order, which has been merged into final order of there is no bar in challenging the this regard, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National as well as by a Gopi Krishan Khanna Vs. M/s Khadi Further reliance is placed upon the Prithi Pal Singh and ntend that merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, as the dominant at Dogra, Advocate, who has filed the caveat on behalf of the respondent, accepts notice for the respondent and submits that the impugned reasoned order passed by the learned Appellate appreciation of facts and law, thus, the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper no PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5484-2025 (O&M) merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. two separate appeals were filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by the learned Rent Controller and the final order payment of rent so assessed provisional challenged in Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 and challenged in Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024. Both these appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.03.2025. All these orders were challenged by petitioners before this Court in C.R. No.2143 of 202 wherein vide order dated 05.04.2025 passed by this Court, orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, on request of learned counsel for petitioners, w remedy in accordance with law and the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the eviction order dated 19.10.202 of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal and the appeal was remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the same on merit. an application for amendment was moved by the petitioners herein see amendment in the grounds of appeal bearing Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 effect of challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 assessed by the learned Rent Controller, which has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Author 2024 was filed provisional rent by the learned Rent Controller, which stood dismissed by the 2025 (O&M) -5- in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. two separate appeals were filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by the learned Rent nd the final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023 was payment of rent so assessed provisionally. The order dated 19.09.2023 was Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 and challenged in Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024. Both these appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.03.2025. All these orders were challenged by petitioners before this Court in C.R. No.2143 of 202 order dated 05.04.2025 passed by this Court, orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, on request of learned counsel for petitioners, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedy in accordance with law and the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the eviction order .10.2023 on the ground of delay was set aside, of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal and the appeal was remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the same on merit. an application for amendment was moved by the petitioners herein see amendment in the grounds of appeal bearing Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 effect of challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 assessed by the learned Rent Controller, which has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority and rightly so. Admittedly, Rent Appeal No.25 of filed by the petitioners against order dated 19.09.2023 assessing the provisional rent by the learned Rent Controller, which stood dismissed by the in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, two separate appeals were filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by the learned Rent of eviction dated 19.10.2023 was passed on non The order dated 19.09.2023 was Rent Appeal No.25 of 2024 and the order dated 19.10.2023 was challenged in Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024. Both these appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.03.2025. All these orders were challenged by petitioners before this Court in C.R. No.2143 of 202 order dated 05.04.2025 passed by this Court, revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller and dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, on request of learned as dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedy in accordance with law and the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the eviction order on the ground of delay was set aside, allowing condondation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal and the appeal was remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the same on merit. It is in this eventuality, an application for amendment was moved by the petitioners herein seeking amendment in the grounds of appeal bearing Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024 to the effect of challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby provisional rent was assessed by the learned Rent Controller, which has been dismissed by the Admittedly, Rent Appeal No.25 of by the petitioners against order dated 19.09.2023 assessing the provisional rent by the learned Rent Controller, which stood dismissed by the Admittedly, two separate appeals were filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by the learned Rent non- The order dated 19.09.2023 was order dated 19.10.2023 was challenged in Rent Appeal No.26 of 2024. Both these appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.03.2025. All these orders were challenged by petitioners before this Court in C.R. No.2143 of 2025 revision petition qua dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, on request of learned as dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedy in accordance with law and the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the eviction order allowing condondation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal and the appeal was remanded back to the It is in this eventuality, king to the whereby provisional rent was assessed by the learned Rent Controller, which has been dismissed by the Admittedly, Rent Appeal No.25 of by the petitioners against order dated 19.09.2023 assessing the provisional rent by the learned Rent Controller, which stood dismissed by the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5484-2025 (O&M) learned Appellate Authority vide order dated further challenged in the revision petition before this Court along with order dated 18.03.2025 passed in appeal preferred against final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023, however, to withdraw the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 and 18.03.2025 whereby provisional rent was assessed and appeal against the said assessment was dismissed, with liberty to pursue their remedy separately in accordance with law. Once an order has been challenged in appeal and the appellate authority has decided the appeal as well, the same order cannot again be challenged before the same authority. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then they are s by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh before the very same authority in another appeal filed against the final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023 by way of seeking amendment in the grounds of a 18.03.2025 has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority in appeal preferred by petitioners against order dated 19.09.2023, it has become officio and its very own order cannot be sought to be set aside in another pending consideration petitioners cannot do directly, they are trying to do the same indirectly, which cannot be permitted. 7. The settled proposition of law earlier interim orders merge into the final orders exist, is not disputed. In fact, if the same analogy is applied in the present case then the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by the learned Rent Controller has merged into the final order of eviction dated 2025 (O&M) -6- learned Appellate Authority vide order dated further challenged in the revision petition before this Court along with order dated 18.03.2025 passed in appeal preferred against final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023, however, the petitioners for the reasons best known to withdraw the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 and 18.03.2025 whereby provisional rent was assessed and appeal against the said assessment was dismissed, with liberty to pursue their remedy separately in accordance with nce an order has been challenged in appeal and the appellate authority has decided the appeal as well, the same order cannot again be challenged before the same authority. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then they are seeking to challenge the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh before the very same authority in another appeal filed against the final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023 by way of seeking amendment in the grounds of a 18.03.2025 has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority in appeal preferred by petitioners against order dated 19.09.2023, it has become and its very own order cannot be sought to be set aside in another pending consideration, which arose from the same rent petitioners cannot do directly, they are trying to do the same indirectly, which cannot be permitted. The settled proposition of law that once a final order is passed, a earlier interim orders merge into the final orders is not disputed. In fact, if the same analogy is applied in the present case the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by Rent Controller has merged into the final order of eviction dated learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.03.2025. These orders were further challenged in the revision petition before this Court along with order dated 18.03.2025 passed in appeal preferred against final order of eviction dated the petitioners for the reasons best known to them sought to withdraw the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 and 18.03.2025 whereby provisional rent was assessed and appeal against the said assessment was dismissed, with liberty to pursue their remedy separately in accordance with nce an order has been challenged in appeal and the appellate authority has decided the appeal as well, the same order cannot again be challenged before the same authority. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is eeking to challenge the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh before the very same authority in another appeal filed against the final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023 by way of seeking amendment in the grounds of appeal. Once final order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority in appeal preferred by petitioners against order dated 19.09.2023, it has become functus and its very own order cannot be sought to be set aside in another appeal , which arose from the same rent proceedings. What petitioners cannot do directly, they are trying to do the same indirectly, which that once a final order is passed, a earlier interim orders merge into the final orders and interim orders cease to is not disputed. In fact, if the same analogy is applied in the present case the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by Rent Controller has merged into the final order of eviction dated 18.03.2025. These orders were further challenged in the revision petition before this Court along with order dated 18.03.2025 passed in appeal preferred against final order of eviction dated to them sought to withdraw the revision petition qua orders dated 19.09.2023 and 18.03.2025 whereby provisional rent was assessed and appeal against the said assessment was dismissed, with liberty to pursue their remedy separately in accordance with nce an order has been challenged in appeal and the appellate authority has decided the appeal as well, the same order cannot again be challenged before the same authority. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is eeking to challenge the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh before the very same authority in another appeal filed against the final order of eviction dated 19.10.2023 by Once final order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority in appeal functus appeal . What petitioners cannot do directly, they are trying to do the same indirectly, which that once a final order is passed, all and interim orders cease to is not disputed. In fact, if the same analogy is applied in the present case the order dated 19.09.2023 whereby the provisional rent was assessed by Rent Controller has merged into the final order of eviction dated PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5484-2025 (O&M) 19.10.2023, which order has already been challenged in Rent Appeal N 2024 and thus, amendment in the grounds of appeal. absence of any stay by a higher forum or being set aside as such in appeal, operation of order dated 19.09.2023 does not cease to exist and it is still in operation and the petitioners are bound to pay the rent a dated 19.09.2023 Appellate Authority that interim order dated 19.09.2023 cease to exist upon passing of final order o eviction dated 19.10.2023 falls flat on the ground. 8. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in Harjit Singh Uppal’s case by the learned Appellate Authority as not applicabl the said case, the tenant did not challenge the order of fixing provisional rent in appeal whereas in the present case, the order was challenge was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the same dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail separate remedy in accordance with law, meaning thereby, order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in appeal against the order dated 19.09.2023, Further reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithi Pal Singh case amendment was allowed as new ground was sought to be added and not new relief, however, in the 19.09.2023 has been sought 2025 (O&M) -7- 19.10.2023, which order has already been challenged in Rent Appeal N 2024 and thus, is not required to be challenged by way of amendment in the grounds of appeal. Rather, the actual position is that in the absence of any stay by a higher forum or being set aside as such in appeal, operation of order dated 19.09.2023 does not cease to exist and it is still in operation and the petitioners are bound to pay the rent a dated 19.09.2023 even during the pendency of appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that interim order dated 19.09.2023 cease to exist upon passing of final order o eviction dated 19.10.2023 falls flat on the ground. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Harjit Singh Uppal’s case (supra) by the learned Appellate Authority as not applicabl case, the tenant did not challenge the order of fixing provisional rent in appeal whereas in the present case, the order was challenge was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the same dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail separate remedy in accordance with law, meaning thereby, order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate in appeal against the order dated 19.09.2023, rther reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithi Pal Singh (supra) also does not save the cause of petitioners, as case amendment was allowed as new ground was sought to be added and not new relief, however, in the present case new relief i.e. challenge to order dated 19.09.2023 has been sought, which was not there earlier 19.10.2023, which order has already been challenged in Rent Appeal No.26 of is not required to be challenged by way of application seeking Rather, the actual position is that in the absence of any stay by a higher forum or being set aside as such in appeal, operation of order dated 19.09.2023 does not cease to exist and it is still in operation and the petitioners are bound to pay the rent as assessed vide order even during the pendency of appeal before the learned . Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that interim order dated 19.09.2023 cease to exist upon passing of final order o eviction dated 19.10.2023 falls flat on the ground. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the (supra) has rightly been distinguished by the learned Appellate Authority as not applicable to facts of present case. In case, the tenant did not challenge the order of fixing provisional rent in appeal whereas in the present case, the order was challenged in appeal, which was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the same was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail separate remedy in accordance with law, meaning thereby, order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate in appeal against the order dated 19.09.2023, still holds field till today rther reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra) also does not save the cause of petitioners, as in this case amendment was allowed as new ground was sought to be added and not the present case new relief i.e. challenge to order dated , which was not there earlier. o.26 of seeking Rather, the actual position is that in the absence of any stay by a higher forum or being set aside as such in appeal, operation of order dated 19.09.2023 does not cease to exist and it is still in s assessed vide order even during the pendency of appeal before the learned . Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that interim order dated 19.09.2023 cease to exist upon passing of final order of Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the has rightly been distinguished e to facts of present case. In case, the tenant did not challenge the order of fixing provisional rent in in appeal, which also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail separate remedy in accordance with law, meaning thereby, order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Appellate till today. rther reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in this the present case new relief i.e. challenge to order dated PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5484-2025 (O&M) 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learne Authority and the same is affirmed. The instant revision petition is dismissed. 10. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 27, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -8- In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learne Authority and the same is affirmed. The instant revision petition is dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority and the same is affirmed. The instant revision petition is dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no d Appellate PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh