CR-219-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT Manohar Lal & another Amrinder Singh Poonia & another CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. Finding divergence in views Court on the issue of Controller dismissing the application ‘leave to contest referred to Larger 2. A few facts respondent provisions of Section issuance of notice of provisions of section 38(7)(b) The Rent Controller, SAS Nagar dated 16.10.2023 ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH Manohar Lal & another Versus Amrinder Singh Poonia & another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondents. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. Finding divergence in views taken by different Single Benches of this on the issue of validity of a composite order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the application filed by petitioners contest’ as well as directing their eviction Larger Bench and is before this Court. A few facts, necessary to notice for answering the No.1 (landlord), being NRI, filed an eviction petition under provisions of Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. issuance of notice, the petitioners (tenants) moved an application of provisions of section 38(7)(b) seeking ‘leave to The Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) 16.10.2023, which is impugned herein, FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-219-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 ………..… Petitioners ….…..... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondents. different Single Benches of this validity of a composite order passed by the Rent filed by petitioners (tenants) seeking directing their eviction, the matter has been Bench and is before this Court. answering the reference are that (landlord), being NRI, filed an eviction petition under 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. Pursuant to (tenants) moved an application in terms seeking ‘leave to contest’ the said petition. (Mohali), by way of a composite order , which is impugned herein, while declining the different Single Benches of this validity of a composite order passed by the Rent (tenants) seeking , the matter has been reference are that (landlord), being NRI, filed an eviction petition under Pursuant to in terms ’ the said petition. by way of a composite order the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-219-2025 (O&M) application seeking ‘leave to the tenants. before the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) also dismissed 3. When the matter an issue was raised passing a composite order to contest’ and an opportunity to seek review of order dated denial seriously prejudiced 4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) as well as learned counsel representing respondent of this Court on the issue, the Single Bench noticing the conflict in judicial pronouncements referred the m in the referral order dated 02.09.2025 are extracted herein (i) Whether non of application for leave to defend as envisaged under Section of The Punjab Rent Act, 1995, renders the eviction order nullity. (ii) As to whether such requirement is directory and substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 38 would be sufficient if the composite order of dismissal of ap eviction order is passed and time is granted to handover the vacant possession to the petitioner. 5. While the tenanc Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (herein 1949 Act’), the said Act stood repealed by the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the 1995 Act’) the petitioners had been indu ( 2 ) plication seeking ‘leave to contest’ the petition . The tenants (petitioners herein before the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) dismissed which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. hen the matter came up for hearing before an issue was raised by the petitioners (tenants) passing a composite order of dismissal of and directing their eviction simultaneously an opportunity to seek review of order dated seriously prejudiced them in exercise of their statutory rights. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) as well as learned counsel representing respondent (landlord) of this Court on the issue, the Single Bench noticing the conflict in judicial pronouncements referred the matter to a larger Bench in the referral order dated 02.09.2025 are extracted herein Whether non-grant of ten days’ period to file review against dismissal of application for leave to defend as envisaged under Section of The Punjab Rent Act, 1995, renders the eviction order nullity. Or As to whether such requirement is directory and substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 38 would be sufficient if the composite order of dismissal of application for leave to defend and eviction order is passed and time is granted to handover the vacant possession to the petitioner. hile the tenancies in the State of Punjab w Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (herein , the said Act stood repealed by the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the 1995 Act’) the petitioners had been inducted as tenant before the 1995 Act came into the petition, ordered for eviction of herein) assailed the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali), but the appeal was the instant revision petition. efore a Single Bench of this Court, (tenants) that the Rent Controller by of dismissal of their application seeking ‘leave simultaneously had deprived them of an opportunity to seek review of order dated 16.10.2023 and that such in exercise of their statutory rights. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) as well as learned (landlord) relied upon various judgments of this Court on the issue, the Single Bench noticing the conflict in judicial atter to a larger Bench. The questions posed in the referral order dated 02.09.2025 are extracted herein-under: grant of ten days’ period to file review against dismissal of application for leave to defend as envisaged under Section 38(7)(e) of The Punjab Rent Act, 1995, renders the eviction order nullity. As to whether such requirement is directory and substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 38 would be sufficient if the plication for leave to defend and eviction order is passed and time is granted to handover the vacant in the State of Punjab were earlier regulated by East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the , the said Act stood repealed by the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the 1995 Act’). Although, in the present case ted as tenant before the 1995 Act came into of assailed the aforesaid order was a Single Bench of this Court, by application seeking ‘leave of such Since the learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) as well as learned judgments of this Court on the issue, the Single Bench noticing the conflict in judicial osed East referred as ‘the , the said Act stood repealed by the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 Although, in the present case ted as tenant before the 1995 Act came into VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-219-2025 (O&M) force w.e.f. 30.11.2013, but by virtue of 1995 Act and also provisions of by NRI landlord is to be instituted under the new Act. 6. The relevant remedies available to “leave to contest” herein-under to check out the changes brought about by the new Act Remedy against order EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT Restriction Act 1949 18A. Special procedure for disposal of applications under section 13 x x x ( there is no provision for review in section 18A) 18-A (8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie order for the recovery of possession of any [residential building or scheduled building and/or non residential building] [Substituted made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section :Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according t the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. 7. A conspicuous differ provisions under the two Acts with regard to filing of an application for review before the Rent Controller inasmuch as for review existed therein under the 1949 Act, but S 1995 Act specifically provides for the same. ( 3 ) force w.e.f. 30.11.2013, but by virtue of savings clause in 1995 Act and also provisions of Section 24(3) itself, any eviction petition by NRI landlord is to be instituted under the new Act. relevant provisions under the 1949 Act remedies available to a tenant upon dismissal of his application seeking “leave to contest” eviction petition filed by NRI landlord are under to check out the changes brought about by the new Act Remedy against order of Rent Controller declining leave to contest EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT Restriction Act 1949 Special procedure for disposal of applications under section 13-A or 13-B – x x x ( there is no provision for review in section 18A) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any [residential building or scheduled building and/or non residential [Substituted vide Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001.] made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section :Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. A conspicuous difference is easily discernable upon perusal of the relevant provisions under the two Acts with regard to filing of an application for review before the Rent Controller inasmuch as for review existed therein under the 1949 Act, but S 1995 Act specifically provides for the same. savings clause in section 75(2) of ection 24(3) itself, any eviction petition by NRI landlord is to be instituted under the new Act. under the 1949 Act and 1995 Act, pertaining to the tenant upon dismissal of his application seeking eviction petition filed by NRI landlord are juxtaposed under to check out the changes brought about by the new Act: Rent Controller declining leave to contest : EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT Restriction Act 1949 PUNJAB RENT ACT, 1995 Special procedure for disposal of applications 38. Procedure to be followed by Rent Authority – xx xx xx (7)(e) - Where the leave to contest under clause (c) is denied to the tenant he may file an application for review before the Rent Authority within ten days of such denial and the Rent Authority shall endeavour to dispose of such application within seven days of its filing. against an order for the recovery of possession of any [residential building or scheduled building and/or non residential vide Punjab Act No. 9 of 2001.] made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section :Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the o law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect 50(5) - An appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority from every order or decision of Rent Authority made under this Act both on question of law and facts: Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order or decision of Rent Authority made under section 21 or section 33 of this Act ence is easily discernable upon perusal of the relevant provisions under the two Acts with regard to filing of an application for review before the Rent Controller inasmuch as while no specific provision for review existed therein under the 1949 Act, but Section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 Act specifically provides for the same. Thus, in case the Rent 75(2) of ection 24(3) itself, any eviction petition pertaining to the tenant upon dismissal of his application seeking juxtaposed 38. Procedure to be followed by Where the leave to is denied he may file an before the Rent Authority within ten days of such denial and the Rent Authority shall endeavour to dispose of such application within seven days of to the Appellate Authority from every order or decision of Rent Authority made under this Act that no appeal shall lie of Rent Authority made under section ence is easily discernable upon perusal of the relevant provisions under the two Acts with regard to filing of an application for no specific provision ection 38(7)(e) of the case the Rent VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-219-2025 (O&M) Controller, while orders his ejectment the tenant of an opportunity to seek review of such order particularly under the new Act, specific under Section 38(7)(e) considered by there is some divergence of opinion in the matter. into service before the Single Bench by both the sides are briefly referred to herein-under: Judgements in favour of 1 Krishan Kumar & others Vs. Kamla Devi, A Single Bench of this Court applicable order on the application for leave to defend and time to the aggrieved party to file a review application, th order should be passed Further, 2011(2) on an analysis of review against the order declining an application for 2 Prabhveer Singh Vs. Simardeep Singh (CR A Single Bench passed before expiry of order declining leave to of Rent Controller to enable the tenant to exercise his right of review 3 Madan Lal Vs. Salwinder Singh (CR It has been 1995 Act providing opportunity to the tenant to file of the order passing of a composite order amounts to denial of his right. ( 4 ) , while declining tenant’s application for ‘leave to ejectment simultaneously, the same the tenant of an opportunity to seek review of such order particularly new Act, specific provisions for review have been made therein Section 38(7)(e). The validity of such composite orders came to be considered by various Single Benches of this Court, but it appears that there is some divergence of opinion in the matter. into service before the Single Bench by both the sides are briefly referred under: Judgements in favour of Petitioners ( TENANT Krishan Kumar & others Vs. Kamla Devi, A Single Bench of this Court held that - ‘ applicable, it would be incumbent upon the Rent Controller to first pass an order on the application for leave to defend and the aggrieved party to file a review application, th should be passed.’ , the decision of Full Bench of this Court RCR (Rent), 604, was held to be inapplicable having been delivered on an analysis of the 1949 Act, when there was no provision review against the order declining an application for Prabhveer Singh Vs. Simardeep Singh (CR Single Bench of this Court, upon finding that eviction order had been passed before expiry of the period of 10 days provided for review of the order declining leave to contest, the matter was remanded back to the Court of Rent Controller to enable the tenant to exercise his right of review Madan Lal Vs. Salwinder Singh (CR-2117 It has been held by this Court that once there is specific provision under 1995 Act providing opportunity to the tenant to file the order declining leave to contest passed by the Rent Authority, then passing of a composite order depriving the tenant of such an opportunity amounts to denial of his right. application for ‘leave to contest’, the same would amount to depriving the tenant of an opportunity to seek review of such order particularly when for review have been made therein The validity of such composite orders came to be various Single Benches of this Court, but it appears that there is some divergence of opinion in the matter. The judgments pressed into service before the Single Bench by both the sides are briefly referred TENANT ): Krishan Kumar & others Vs. Kamla Devi, 2016 (1) RCR (Rent) 525: ‘once it is held that the 1995 Act is , it would be incumbent upon the Rent Controller to first pass an order on the application for leave to defend and it is only after affording the aggrieved party to file a review application, that a separate final of this Court in Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, was held to be inapplicable having been delivered the 1949 Act, when there was no provision for filing a review against the order declining an application for ‘leave to contest’. Prabhveer Singh Vs. Simardeep Singh (CR-2117 of 2022) : upon finding that eviction order had been period of 10 days provided for review of the , the matter was remanded back to the Court of Rent Controller to enable the tenant to exercise his right of review. 2117-2022) : that once there is specific provision under the 1995 Act providing opportunity to the tenant to file an application for review passed by the Rent Authority, then depriving the tenant of such an opportunity , amount to depriving when for review have been made therein The validity of such composite orders came to be various Single Benches of this Court, but it appears that The judgments pressed into service before the Single Bench by both the sides are briefly referred the 1995 Act is , it would be incumbent upon the Rent Controller to first pass an affording separate final Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, was held to be inapplicable having been delivered for filing a upon finding that eviction order had been period of 10 days provided for review of the , the matter was remanded back to the Court the an application for review passed by the Rent Authority, then depriving the tenant of such an opportunity VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-219-2025 (O&M) Judgement in favour of 1 Harminder Singh @ Billu @ Harwinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh Sidhu @ Sukhvir Singh, A contrary view Rent Controller having passed a detailed order denying leave to contest to the tenant and circumstance would be nothing, but an empty formality taken place in favour of the tenant in the case of the landlord. 8. While learned counsel for the appearing vehemently argued that the rights of the petitioners to seek review stand seriously prejudiced by way of passing a composite order, representing responden the ‘leave to defend’ having been passed alongwith an order of ejectment, the petitioners (tenants) even if held to have been deprived of right to review could effectively exercise their right of appeal 50 of the 1995 Act appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent fact that order of eviction passed under Section 24 has now b appealable under the 1995 Act, whereas no such provision the 1949 Act, the petitioners (tenants) cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner. 9. We have considered the aforesaid rival submissions and have also gone through the judgments of Single Benches on the issue, as have been referred to above. ( 5 ) Judgement in favour of Respondent ( LANDLORD Harminder Singh @ Billu @ Harwinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh Sidhu @ Sukhvir Singh, 2024(1) RCR(Rent)92 contrary view has been taken by the Single Bench to the effect that the Rent Controller having passed a detailed order denying leave to contest to the tenant and having found merit in the case circumstances, ‘asking him to review the order would be nothing, but an empty formality’ taken place in favour of the tenant in the interregnum case of the landlord. earned counsel for the appearing vehemently argued that the rights of the petitioners to seek review stand seriously prejudiced by way of passing a composite order, representing respondent (landlord) submitted that a detailed order declining he ‘leave to defend’ having been passed alongwith an order of ejectment, the petitioners (tenants) even if held to have been deprived of right to review could effectively exercise their right of appeal 50 of the 1995 Act and they in fact did exercise appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent (landlord) further submitted that given the fact that order of eviction passed under Section 24 has now b appealable under the 1995 Act, whereas no such provision the 1949 Act, the petitioners (tenants) cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner. We have considered the aforesaid rival submissions and have also gone gh the judgments of Single Benches on the issue, as have been referred to above. LANDLORD ) : Harminder Singh @ Billu @ Harwinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh Sidhu 4(1) RCR(Rent)92 : taken by the Single Bench to the effect that the Rent Controller having passed a detailed order denying leave to contest to having found merit in the case, then under such asking him to review the order within 10 days of its passing ’ unless something substantial had interregnum adversely affecting the earned counsel for the appearing for the petitioners (tenants) vehemently argued that the rights of the petitioners to seek review stand seriously prejudiced by way of passing a composite order, learned counsel submitted that a detailed order declining he ‘leave to defend’ having been passed alongwith an order of ejectment, the petitioners (tenants) even if held to have been deprived of right to review could effectively exercise their right of appeal in terms of Section exercise such right and preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed. (landlord) further submitted that given the fact that order of eviction passed under Section 24 has now been made appealable under the 1995 Act, whereas no such provision was there under the 1949 Act, the petitioners (tenants) cannot be said to have been We have considered the aforesaid rival submissions and have also gone gh the judgments of Single Benches on the issue, as have been Harminder Singh @ Billu @ Harwinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh Sidhu taken by the Single Bench to the effect that the Rent Controller having passed a detailed order denying leave to contest to , then under such within 10 days of its passing unless something substantial had adversely affecting the for the petitioners (tenants) vehemently argued that the rights of the petitioners to seek review stand learned counsel submitted that a detailed order declining he ‘leave to defend’ having been passed alongwith an order of ejectment, the petitioners (tenants) even if held to have been deprived of right to terms of Section an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed. (landlord) further submitted that given the een made under the 1949 Act, the petitioners (tenants) cannot be said to have been We have considered the aforesaid rival submissions and have also gone gh the judgments of Single Benches on the issue, as have been VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-219-2025 (O&M) 10. The legislature in Acts for ejectment of made stringent and time bound for the purpose of en landlord is able to get his premises vacated expeditiously is conspicuous change in the provisions a tenant inasmuch as while under th provision for filing any appeal or review against an order declining ‘leave to defend’, a specific provision has been incorporated for order under the 1995 Act. The relevant reproduced herein “38(7) (e) 11. We find that once a specific provision for review of an order stands incorporated, the same has to be given effect to the Rent Controller defend’ moved by the tenant day or by the same very composite order, the right as afforded under the new Act i.e. 1995 Act, for review of such order defeated. 12. Although the provisions of 1995 Act do not specifically mandate in so many words that the Rent Controller is obliged to adjourn the matter for at least 10 days after dismissing the application seeking ‘leave to contest’ so as to afford an opport ( 6 ) The legislature in its wisdom provided for special provisions for ejectment of NRI landlords, wherein the provisions are made stringent and time bound for the purpose of en landlord is able to get his premises vacated expeditiously is conspicuous change in the provisions pertaining to remedies available to inasmuch as while under the 1949 Act, there was no specific provision for filing any appeal or review against an order declining ‘leave to defend’, a specific provision has been incorporated for order under the 1995 Act. The relevant Section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 Act reproduced herein-under: 38(7) xx xx Where the leave to contest under clause the tenant he may file an application for review before the Rent Authority within ten days of such denial the Rent Authority shall endeavour application within seven days of its filing. We find that once a specific provision for review of an order stands incorporated, the same has to be given effect to the Rent Controller while declining an application seeking ‘leave to moved by the tenant, passes an order of ejectment on the same very day or by the same very composite order, the right as afforded under the new Act i.e. 1995 Act, for review of such order Although the provisions of 1995 Act do not specifically mandate in so many words that the Rent Controller is obliged to adjourn the matter for at least 10 days after dismissing the application seeking ‘leave to contest’ so as to afford an opportunity to the tenant to exercise his right of review, but wisdom provided for special provisions under both the , wherein the provisions are, in a way, made stringent and time bound for the purpose of ensuring that a NRI landlord is able to get his premises vacated expeditiously. However, there pertaining to remedies available to e 1949 Act, there was no specific provision for filing any appeal or review against an order declining ‘leave to defend’, a specific provision has been incorporated for review of such Section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 Act is xx Where the leave to contest under clause (c) is denied to the tenant he may file an application for review before the Rent Authority within ten days of such denial and the Rent Authority shall endeavour to dispose of such application within seven days of its filing.” We find that once a specific provision for review of an order stands incorporated, the same has to be given effect to in letter and spirit. In case, an application seeking ‘leave to passes an order of ejectment on the same very day or by the same very composite order, the right as afforded under the new Act i.e. 1995 Act, for review of such order would virtually stand Although the provisions of 1995 Act do not specifically mandate in so many words that the Rent Controller is obliged to adjourn the matter for at least 10 days after dismissing the application seeking ‘leave to contest’ so exercise his right of review, but under both the , suring that a NRI However, there pertaining to remedies available to e 1949 Act, there was no specific provision for filing any appeal or review against an order declining ‘leave review of such is We find that once a specific provision for review of an order stands In case, an application seeking ‘leave to passes an order of ejectment on the same very day or by the same very composite order, the right as afforded under the virtually stand Although the provisions of 1995 Act do not specifically mandate in so many words that the Rent Controller is obliged to adjourn the matter for at least 10 days after dismissing the application seeking ‘leave to contest’ so exercise his right of review, but VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-219-2025 (O&M) such an obligation has to be read into the provisions of Section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 Act, lest the provision for seeking review of order declining leave to contest would be rendered passed while d to be termed as an order passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act and would be required to be set aside. to the contrary view taken by the Single Bench of this Court in Singh @ Billu’s case days of passing a detailed order declin nothing but an empty formality unless something had happened in the meanwhile favourable to the tenant and adversely affecting the case of the petitioner/landlord and in Madan Lal’s case 1995 Act have been interpreted in the right spirit bearing in mind the object sought to be achieved therein for providing opportunity to tenant to seek ‘review’ of order declining leave to contest. 13. Consequently passed by Single Bench composite order and directing would be an order Act and an order in nullity 14. Having held so ordered straightway ( 7 ) such an obligation has to be read into the provisions of Section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 Act, lest the provision for seeking review of order declining leave to contest would be rendered otiose. Any passed while divesting the tenant of such right to seek review to be termed as an order passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act and would be required to be set aside. We are ntrary view taken by the Single Bench of this Court in Singh @ Billu’s case (supra) that provision for filing review within 10 days of passing a detailed order declining leave to contest nothing but an empty formality unless something had happened in the meanwhile favourable to the tenant and adversely affecting the case of the petitioner/landlord’. On the other hand, in Madan Lal’s case (supra), the provisions of section 38(7)(e) of 1995 Act have been interpreted in the right spirit bearing in mind the object sought to be achieved therein for providing opportunity to tenant to seek ‘review’ of order declining leave to contest. Consequently, the questions posed in the refer passed by Single Bench are answered accordingly to the effect that a composite order passed declining an application seeking ‘leave to defend’ directing ejectment, in proceedings where the 1995 Act is applicable an order defeating the provisions and an order in nullity to the extent it directs ejectment of tenant. Having held so, the impugned composite order ordered straightway, depriving the tenant of such an obligation has to be read into the provisions of Section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 Act, lest the provision for seeking review of order declining leave Any order of ejectment having been right to seek review, would have to be termed as an order passed in contravention of the provisions of the We are, thus, unable to subscribe ntrary view taken by the Single Bench of this Court in Harminder hat provision for filing review within 10 g leave to contest - ‘would be nothing but an empty formality unless something had happened in the meanwhile favourable to the tenant and adversely affecting the case of the On the other hand, in Krishan Kumar’s case (supra) he provisions of section 38(7)(e) of 1995 Act have been interpreted in the right spirit bearing in mind the object sought to be achieved therein for providing opportunity to tenant to seek ‘review’ of order declining leave to contest. in the referral order dated 02.09.2025 are answered accordingly to the effect that a declining an application seeking ‘leave to defend’ in proceedings where the 1995 Act is applicable, the provisions of section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 to the extent it directs ejectment of tenant. composite order wherein eviction has been depriving the tenant of his right to seek review of such an obligation has to be read into the provisions of Section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 Act, lest the provision for seeking review of order declining leave order of ejectment having been would have to be termed as an order passed in contravention of the provisions of the unable to subscribe Harminder hat provision for filing review within 10 would be nothing but an empty formality unless something had happened in the meanwhile favourable to the tenant and adversely affecting the case of the (supra) he provisions of section 38(7)(e) of 1995 Act have been interpreted in the right spirit bearing in mind the object sought to be achieved therein for providing opportunity to tenant to seek 02.09.2025 are answered accordingly to the effect that a declining an application seeking ‘leave to defend’ , section 38(7)(e) of the 1995 n eviction has been of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-219-2025 (O&M) order declining leave order/directions are issued: (i) The impugned order dated 16.10.2023, to the extent it tenant to hand over vacant possession of premises to landlord is set aside (ii) The matter is, remanded back to the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) so as to enable the petitioners (tenants) to exercise their right of rev pertains to declining the application seeking ‘leave to (iii) The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on thereafter to the petitioners (tenants) to move an appropriate application (iv) In case, such disposed of within the time matter shall proceed further thereafter as per provisions of the Act. (v) Unless there are extremely compelling and unavoidable circumstances, the matter be not adjourned 3 years ever since the landlord moved an the tenants resort to dilatory tactics. 15. The revision petition stands disposed of 26.02.2026 Vimal ( 8 ) order declining leave cannot sustain to such extent order/directions are issued: The impugned order dated 16.10.2023, to the extent it tenant to hand over vacant possession of premises to landlord is set to such extent. The matter is, remanded back to the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) so as to enable the petitioners (tenants) to exercise their right of review against order dated pertains to declining the application seeking ‘leave to The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on 12.03.2026 who shall afford thereafter to the petitioners (tenants) to move an appropriate application seeking review of order dated In case, such an application seeking review is filed, the same shall be disposed of within the time-frame prescribed under the matter shall proceed further thereafter as per provisions of the Act. Unless there are extremely compelling and unavoidable circumstances, the matter be not adjourned 3 years ever since the landlord moved an the tenants. The Rent Controller to ensure that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( 26.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: cannot sustain to such extent. As such, the following The impugned order dated 16.10.2023, to the extent it directs the tenant to hand over vacant possession of premises to landlord is set The matter is, remanded back to the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) so as to enable the petitioners (tenants) to exercise their iew against order dated 16.10.2023 so far as the same pertains to declining the application seeking ‘leave to contest’. The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar who shall afford a period of atleast 10 days thereafter to the petitioners (tenants) to move an appropriate seeking review of order dated 16.10.2023. application seeking review is filed, the same shall be frame prescribed under the Act. The matter shall proceed further thereafter as per provisions of the Act. Unless there are extremely compelling and unavoidable circumstances, the matter be not adjourned as it is already more than 3 years ever since the landlord moved an application for ejectment of The Rent Controller to ensure that the parties do not accordingly. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , the following directs the tenant to hand over vacant possession of premises to landlord is set The matter is, remanded back to the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali) so as to enable the petitioners (tenants) to exercise their 16.10.2023 so far as the same The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller, SAS Nagar ys thereafter to the petitioners (tenants) to move an appropriate application seeking review is filed, the same shall be The Unless there are extremely compelling and unavoidable as it is already more than application for ejectment of The Rent Controller to ensure that the parties do not VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document