Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot order full remand when it has power to decide appeal itself: Rajasthan HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot remand a rent eviction matter back to the Rent Tribunal when sufficient evidence is already on record and the Appellate Rent Tribunal itself possesses the necessary powers to decide the dispute. The Court further held that in summary proceedings under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, subsequent events must be brought on record by way of affidavits and not through formal amendments to pleadings, framing of additional issues, or fresh recording of evidence.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Bipin Gupta on March 19, 2026, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22069/2018 (connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25759/2018), filed by landlords Mohan Lal Verma and others against their tenant Rajendra Prasad Shah.

Background

The landlords had filed a petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, seeking eviction of the tenant from a commercial shop. The grounds of eviction included default in payment of rent, the bona fide requirement of the landlord’s son for running a tailoring business, and the tenant’s possession of suitable alternative accommodation. A prayer for revision of rent was also made.

The Rent Tribunal, by judgment dated February 20, 2018 (as corrected on March 31, 2018), allowed the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord’s son. Both the landlord and the tenant preferred appeals before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. By order dated August 21, 2018, the Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed the tenant’s appeal, reversed the finding on bona fide need, and remanded the matter back to the Rent Tribunal with sweeping directions — to allow the tenant’s pending amendment applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, to take documents on record, to frame fresh issues on subsequent events, and to record evidence afresh before deciding the eviction petition de novo. The landlord’s appeal challenging the finding on alternative accommodation was simultaneously dismissed.

Aggrieved by both orders, the landlords approached the High Court by way of two writ petitions.

What the Landlords Argued

Counsel for the landlords contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter in a manner not contemplated under the Act of 2001. The Act prescribes summary proceedings and is a complete code in itself; the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not strictly applicable to it. Subsequent events in such proceedings can be taken into consideration on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties, without the need for formal amendments, framing of additional issues, or recording of further evidence.

It was also submitted that seventeen opportunities had already been granted to the respondent-tenant to lead evidence before the Rent Tribunal, yet no evidence was led and the tenant’s evidence was consequently closed. In such circumstances, permitting the tenant to lead fresh evidence and directing an entirely fresh adjudication was wholly beyond the Appellate Rent Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Act of 2001.

What the Tenant Argued

Counsel for the respondent-tenant submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal had rightly exercised its jurisdiction within the framework of the Act of 2001. Several interlocutory orders passed by the Rent Tribunal — including orders rejecting the tenant’s applications for amendment and for summoning documents — had been found to be erroneous. Having found those orders incorrect, the Appellate Rent Tribunal was competent to remand the matter for proper adjudication, and its order dated August 21, 2018 did not warrant any interference.

Court’s Analysis

The Court examined Sections 19 and 21 of the Act of 2001 in detail. Section 21(3) makes clear that neither the Rent Tribunal nor the Appellate Rent Tribunal is bound by the Code of Civil Procedure; both forums are guided by the principles of natural justice and are empowered to regulate their own procedure. Crucially, both forums have been vested with similar powers, including the power to summon persons, require discovery of documents, and permit filing of additional affidavits at any stage of the proceedings. Section 19(9) of the Act specifically empowers the Appellate Rent Tribunal to allow filing of additional affidavits or documents at any stage of the appellate proceedings to arrive at a just and proper decision.

The Court held that since the Appellate Rent Tribunal itself possessed the power to summon documents and consider subsequent events, it ought to have exercised those powers itself rather than remanding the matter. The power of remand under Section 19(11)(a)(ii) of the Act should be exercised only when the Appellate Rent Tribunal is unable to effectively exercise its own jurisdiction — for example, where the Rent Tribunal has disposed of the matter on a preliminary issue without going into the merits at all.

Relying on Murlidhar vs Nandkishore [2006 (2) RLW 1687] and Radhey Shyam Soni v. Sumer Mal Phophalia [2006 WLC(UC) 493], the Court reiterated that subsequent events in summary proceedings may be brought on record by way of affidavits under Order XIX Rule 1 CPC, without insisting on formal amendment of pleadings, so that procedural law is not burdened with unnecessary technicalities. The Court also noted that in an earlier round of the same litigation — S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15430/2010 (Rajendra Prasad Shah vs Mohan Lal Verma) — the High Court had itself declined the prayer for amendment of pleadings but granted liberty to file affidavits regarding subsequent events. The Appellate Rent Tribunal had failed to take note of this binding precedent.

The Court further found that the Appellate Rent Tribunal had applied provisions of the CPC — including Section 105 and Order 43 Rule 1 — which are not available to it under the Act of 2001. This exercise of power was contrary to the provisions of law and had resulted in unnecessary delay in eviction proceedings that had been pending since 2005.

On the question of remedy, the Court rejected the landlords’ prayer for direct restoration of the Rent Tribunal’s eviction decree. Relying on J. Balaji Singh vs Diwakar Cole & Ors. [(2017) 14 SCC 207], it held that where a remand order is found to be bad in law, the appropriate course is to set it aside and direct the appellate forum to decide the appeal on merits — not to restore the trial court’s order.

The Order

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22069/2018 was allowed. The Appellate Rent Tribunal’s order dated August 21, 2018, insofar as it relates to Appeal No. 52/2018, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Rent Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits, exercising all powers available under Sections 19 and 21 of the Act of 2001, preferably within six months, keeping in view that the eviction petition has been pending since 2005.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25759/2018, which challenged the concurrent findings on the alternative accommodation issue, was dismissed as no perversity was demonstrated in those findings.

Case Details