JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-7) and 24.01.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, respectively whereby eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute has been ordered.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that an eviction petition was filed by the landlord-respondent under Section 24 (3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') for eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the shop being part of property No.1, Passey Road,

3. Opposite Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patiala on the ground of personal necessity. It was averred in the petition that the landlord-respondent is a permanent resident of Canada and he had been granted permanent residency in Canada on 20.05.2013. Summons were issued to the tenant-petitioner mentioning a petition was under Section 24(3) of the Rent Act. The actual summons (Annexure P-3) reads as under :

'Summons to Defendants Rp/26/2017 Manveer Pal Singh Gill Versus Manjeet Singh Petition u/s 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act.

To,

Manjeet Singh ®, r/o Uttam Singh

(son/daughter/wife/other) of Uttam Singh

Address : H. No.895/3, Khalsa Mohalla Patiala

2nd Address : Shop c/o Part of property bearing No.1 Passey Road Opp Guruduwara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patiala Whereas MANVEERPAL SINGH GILL has instituted a suit against you, you are hereby summoned to appear in this Court in person or by a pleader duly instructed on 19-05-2017 at 09.30 AM in the forenoon, to answer the claim; and file written statement, if required with all the documents upon which you intend to rely in support of your defence.

Take notice that, in default of your appearance on the day before mentioned, you will be proceeded against ex parte.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this 21-03- 2017'

4. On 19.05.2017 the tenant-petitioner put in appearance and requested for an adjournment for filing the written statement. The said request was acceded to by the Rent Controller and the case was adjourned to 12.07.2017 for filing of the written statement. On 12.07.2017 the case was further adjourned to 02.08.2017 for filing of the written statement. On 02.08.2017 the written statement was filed and the case was fixed for 07.09.2017 for consideration on assessment of rent. On 07.09.2017 the case was again adjourned for consideration of provisional rent for 11.10.2017.

5. On 11.10.2017 an application was filed by the landlord-respondent for passing eviction order against the tenant-petitioner on the ground that the petition had been filed under Section 24(3) of the Rent Act for eviction of the respondent and 15 days' period had elapsed since the date of service of summons and no application for leave to contest had been filed by the tenant-petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-7) eviction of the tenant-petitioner was ordered. The order dated 03.03.2020 was challenged before the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal which also came to be dismissed on 24.01.2022. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that as per Section 38(4) of the Rent Act, it has mandatorily been laid down that the summons shall be issued as specified in Schedule III of the Rent Act. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that the summons were not issued in the correct form and the summons that were issued only stated that tenant-petitioner was to put in appearance and file the written statement on 19.05.2017, failing which he would be proceeded against ex parte. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that as per the zimini orders from 19.05.2017 to 07.09.2017, it is very clear that the Rent Controller itself was treating the petition as under Section 20 of the Rent Act and not under Section 24 of the Rent Act.

7. Learned counsel fo