IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4235-2023 (O&M) Pawan Kumar . . . . Pe&&oner Vs. Sandeep Kaur . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 01.09.2026 Pronounced on: 02.09.2026 Pronounced fully/opera&ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. APS Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present revision peon has been filed by the tenant assail- ing the orders dated 17.05.2023 and 20.05.2023 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby his applicaon seeking condonaon of delay in filing the applicaon for leave to defend a peon under Secon 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restricon Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') was dismissed and, consequently, the evicon peon was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the peoner has primarily raised two submissions. Firstly, he has argued that the summons served upon the peoner were not accompanied by a copy of the evicon peon and, therefore, there was no valid service in accordance with Secon 18-A of the Act read with Schedule II thereto. It is submi:ed that the period of 15 days for filing an applicaon for leave to defend could not commence in the absence of proper statutory service. Secondly, it is argued that even if the applicaon for leave to NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.03 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4235-2023 (O&M) defend was liable to be rejected on account of delay, the learned Rent Controller was sll required to independently examine whether the landlord had established the necessary ingredients for an order of evicon under Secon 13-B of the Act and evicon could not have been ordered merely as an automac consequence of refusal of leave to defend. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord has opposed the revision. It is submi:ed that the tenant admi:edly received the summons and, instead of filing an applicaon for leave to defend within the statutory period, approached the Rent Controller a=er a delay of 36 days. The explanaon furnished for the delay was duly considered and rejected. It is argued that the period prescribed under Secon 18-A is mandatory and cannot be enlarged by the Rent Controller. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, 2010 AIR (SC) 3791, to contend that the Rent Controller has no jurisdicon to condone the delay in filing an applicaon for leave to defend. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, 2011 (4) Law Herald 3427, to contend that once leave to defend is not sought within the period prescribed by Secon 18-A, the consequences contemplated by the statute follow and the tenant cannot therea=er seek to contest the evicon peon. Reliance has also been placed upon T.B. Jain Shri v. Smt. Savita Ravi and anr., 2008 (45) RCR (Civil) 927 (Delhi High Court) in support of the submission that the special procedure prescribed for an NRI landlord has to be given effect to and the tenant cannot frustrate the same by raising belated objecons. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the revision. 6. As regards the plea concerning non-supply of a copy of the evicon peon along with summons, the record reveals that the tenant admi:edly received summons on 15.11.2022 and again on 01.12.2022. The applicaon NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.03 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4235-2023 (O&M) filed by him for condonaon of delay was founded essenally upon the plea that, owing to his own illness and the illness of his son, he could not supply the summons and peon to his counsel in me. The learned Rent Controller considered the said explanaon and rejected the applicaon for condonaon of delay. The order specifically noces that under Secon 18-A read with Schedule II, an applicaon for leave to defend was required to be filed within 15 days of service of summons. 7. The contenon regarding absence of the evicon peon from the summons, thus, has not been substanated by any material. More importantly, the tenant did not approach the Court within the statutory period complaining of defecve service or seeking an opportunity to obtain the peon and file leave to defend. His own case before the Rent Controller was that he could not file the applicaon within me for the reasons stated by him. In these circumstances, the subsequent plea of defecve service cannot be permi:ed to defeat the mandatory period prescribed under Secon 18-A of the Act. 8. The legal posion in this regard stands se:led by Om Parkash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Rent Controller, being a creature of the statute, has no power to extend the period prescribed for filing an applicaon for leave to defend by invoking Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act. The Rent Controller has accordingly rightly held that even a delay of one day could not be condoned. 9. The next queson is whether, a=er the tenant's failure to obtain leave to defend, the learned Rent Controller was nevertheless required to examine the landlord's entlement to evicon. 10. There can be no quarrel with the proposion that an evicon order under Secon 13-B cannot be founded upon a completely unexamined peon merely because the tenant has failed to seek leave to defend. The statutory requirements have to be sasfied. However, on the facts of the present case, that exercise was, in fact, undertaken by the learned Rent Controller. Page 3 of 5 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.03 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4235-2023 (O&M) 11. The order dated 20.05.2023 records a finding that the respondent- landlord was an NRI on the basis of her Australian passport. The Rent Controller also examined the transfer deed in her favour and recorded a finding that she had become owner of the premises on 06.02.2015. The objecon raised by the tenant regarding the alleged 1/3rd share of his wife was also considered and dealt with. 12. The learned Rent Controller therea=er specifically considered the landlord's plea of personal requirement. It was recorded that she intended to return to India, permanently se:le in Chandigarh and start her business from the demised shops. The Rent Controller accordingly recorded a finding that the landlord was an NRI, was owner of the premises and required the premises for her bona fide need. 13. Thus, this is not a case, where the learned Rent Controller has passed an order of evicon mechanically or merely on account of the tenant's failure to file leave to defend. The statutory foundaon of the peon, namely, the NRI status, ownership and bona fide requirement of the landlord, was considered and findings were recorded thereon. 14. Once the tenant failed to invoke the statutory right to defend within the period prescribed under Secon 18-A, he could not therea=er insist upon a full-fledged adjudicaon of disputed quesons, which could have been raised only through an applicaon for leave to defend. The very purpose of the special procedure is to prevent a tenant from contesng an NRI landlord's peon as a ma:er of course and to confine such contest to cases where the tenant discloses facts which, if proved, would disentle the landlord from obtaining evicon. 15. The principle relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent from Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur (supra) also supports the consequence flowing from failure to obtain leave to defend. The learned Rent Controller has relied upon the said Full Bench judgment while observing that, once condonaon of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.03 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4235-2023 (O&M) delay was declined and the leave to defend consequently did not survive, the order of ejectment followed as a consequence. 16. The judgment in T.B. Jain v. Savita Ravi (supra) also has to be viewed in the context of the special and expedious procedure enacted for NRI landlords. The legislave intent underlying Secon 13-B read with Secon 18-A would be defeated, if a tenant, who failed to invoke the statutory remedy within the prescribed period, were permi:ed therea=er to convert the proceedings into an ordinary evicon trial. 17. It is also significant that the tenant has not established before this Court any such patent defect in the landlord's status, ownership or pleaded bona fide requirement, which would render the evicon order unsustainable even without the tenant having been granted leave to defend. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller are based upon the material available on record and no jurisdiconal error or perversity is demonstrated. 18. The supervisory jurisdicon of this Court under Secon 18-A (8) of the Act is not intended to provide a means for circumvenng the statutory period prescribed for leave to defend. Once the Rent Controller has considered the statutory requirements and the tenant has failed to make out a legally sustainable ground for reopening the ma:er, interference is not warranted. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdiconal error in the impugned orders dated 17.05.2023 and 20.05.2023. 20. The revision peon is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applica- on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 03.09.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.09.03 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document