Rajesh Singh v. Brij Mohan Dhall and Another

IN T

Rajesh Singh Brij Mohan Dha

CORAM : HON

Present: Ms

Ms

MANDEEP PA

1.

The challenging the Ludhiana, as w

23.12.2024 and Brief Facts

2.

The petitioner/tenant appeared throug the Punjab R

24.01.2022/11.0 The landlord fil Controller dismi

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re De

VERSUS all and Another

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE s. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the s. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate for -.- ANNU J. e present revision petition has order dated 11.12.2024 passe well as all consequential proce the ejectment judgment dated 23 e respondent/landlord filed an t before the learned Rent Con gh counsel on 11.10.2021. An a Rent Act, 1995 seeking le

02.2022, accompanied by an app led reply to the same. After he issed the application for leave to

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-822-2025 (O&M) served on :- 26.08.2025 cided on :- 01.09.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU petitioner. the respondents. been filed by the petitioner/ten d by the learned Rent Control eedings including the order da

3.12.2024. n ejectment petition against ntroller, Ludhiana. The petitio application under Section 38(7) eave to defend was filed plication for condonation of del earing both sides, the learned R o defend by order dated 11.12.20

- nant ller, ated oner ) of on lay.

24.

Submissions of

3.

Lea

11.12.2024 was till the filing of message. Accor Controller was on 23.12.2024, already stood di that no review p passed the ejectm

4.

Lea was uploaded o order, he was prescribed perio Rent Act, 1995 issues in his app same were dism the interest of j petition. Submissions of

5.

Per the present revi dated 11.12.202 open Court in t matter at length f the Petitioner arned counsel for the petition s not uploaded on the website o the present revision petition, the rding to him, he was informe likely to decide the application he was surprised to learn tha ismissed on 11.12.2024. On 23. petition had been filed within the ment order against the tenant. arned counsel further submits th only on 05.01.2025 and that du deprived of an opportunity to od of 10 days as contemplated un . He further argued that the pet plication for leave to defend wh missed without affording proper justice, the petitioner deserves f the Respondent r contra, learned counsel for the ision petition is an afterthought 24 dismissing the application for the presence of counsel for the h. The petitioner was thus ful

ner contends that the order da f the District Court, Ludhiana, a e same continued to reflect an er ed by his counsel that the R for condonation of delay first, at the leave to defend applicat

12.2024, the Rent Controller no e statutory period and consequen hat the final order dated 23.12.20 ue to non-uploading of the ear o file review petition within nder Section 38(7)(b) of the Pun titioner had raised several argua hich deserved consideration, but opportunity. He contended that to be granted time to file rev respondent/landlord submitted t t. It was pointed out that the or leave to defend was pronounced e petitioner/tenant, who argued lly aware of the dismissal of

- ated and rror but oted ntly rlier njab able t in iew that rder d in

application. De provided under

6.

It w where leave to c tenant may file of such denial, within seven da despite knowled permitted to def contended that t hollow excuse, petitioner wante further argued th they do not esta was therefore pr Conclusion

7.

I ha

8.

It i application for counsel for the Controller. The is thus apparent passing of the im

9.

Sec It provides that spite such knowledge, he did Section 38(7)(b) of the Punjab R was further argued that as per contest is denied to a tenant, the an application for review before and the Rent Authority is to ays. The statutory mandate is cle dge of the order, failed to file the feat the legislative intent by see the plea regarding non-uploadin because the order was prono ed, he could have applied for a hat screenshots produced by the ablish that the order was not ava rayed to be dismissed. ave considered the rival submiss s not in dispute that the order d leave to defend filed by the p petitioner was present and had order was thereafter pronounced t that the petitioner, through his mpugned order. ction 38(7)(b) of the Punjab Ren t where the Rent Authority refu

not avail of the statutory reme Rent Act. Section 38(7)(b) of the Rent A e law specifically provides that e the Rent Authority within 10 d endeavour to decide such revi ear and time-bound. The petition e review petition and cannot now eking indulgence in revision. It w ng of the order on the website i ounced in open Court, and if certified copy of the same. It w petitioner are of no consequence ailable to him. The revision petit sions and gone through the record dated 11.12.2024 was passed on petitioner. The record reveals t argued the matter before the R d in open Court on the same day counsel, had due knowledge of nt Act, 1995, is clear in its langua fuses to grant leave to defend,

- edy Act, days iew ner, w be was is a was e as d. that y. It

tenant may file of such denial. ensure speedy proceedings. Th diluted by perm

10.

The website cannot order must be up Court, which w desired a copy copy. No such ignorance or una

11.

The one final and lim leave to defend, tenant allows t Authority is ju Controller has r was filed within

12.

The misplaced, as th unavailable to h in open Court, w

13.

In v afterthought to an application for review before The provision is couched in m disposal of rent cases, whic he statute has fixed a strict tim itting belated review application e petitioner's contention that th come to his rescue. The require ploaded online. The requiremen was admittedly done in this cas of the order, it was always ope application was made. The p availability of the order to justify e legislative intent behind Secti mited opportunity to the tenant t , but this opportunity has to be e that period to lapse despite k ustified in proceeding to pass rightly noted in the order dated n 10 days, and accordingly passed e reliance placed by the petition hose screenshots do not conclu him. The determinative fact rema which constitutes sufficient comm view of the above, the plea raised overcome the consequences of

e the Rent Authority within 10 d mandatory terms and is intended ch are in their nature summ me limit of 10 days and cannot ns on vague pleas. he order was not uploaded on ement under the law is not that nt is that the order be pronounced se. If the petitioner or his coun en to them to apply for a certif petitioner cannot, therefore, pl y his inaction. ion 38(7)(b) of the Act is to aff to seek review of the order refus exercised within 10 days. Once knowledge of the order, the R s the ejectment order. The R

23.12.2024 that no review petit d the ejectment order. ner on screenshots of the websit sively establish that the order w ains that the order was pronoun munication of the order. d by the petitioner is nothing but f his own inaction. The petition

- days d to mary t be t an d in nsel fied ead ford sing e is was nced t an ner,

despite knowled within the statu

23.12.2024 suffe

14.

Acc out to interfere i

15.

Pen

September 01, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe dge of the dismissal of his leave utory period. The Rent Control fer from no illegality or perversit cordingly, the revision petition in the well-reasoned orders of th nding application(s), if any, also 2025

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

to defend application, failed to ller's orders dated 11.12.2024 a ty. is dismissed. No ground is m e Rent Controller stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- act and