The tenant must apply for leave to contest within the statutory period, and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing such an application.

JUDGMENT :

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. Petitioners/tenants being aggrieved by order dated 4.8.2022 passed by the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte and order dated 6.3.2023, whereby an application filed by the petitioners for setting aside aforesaid ex-parte order dated 4.8.2022 has been dismissed in rent petition having CIS No.RP/350/2022 titled Harbans Singh Sandhu vs. Sandeep Singh Sekhon and Others, have filed the present petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/landlord filed eviction petition against the petitioners with regard to property bearing UID No.PT-1206-115531 popularly known as Hotel Mini Holland, Mullanpur Dakha (Ludhiana) under Section 24 (1)(c) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 as amended by Act of 2014 (in short Rent Act), on the grounds that:-

(i) the said premises is required by the respondent/landlord (a senior citizen) for his own use and also for use and occupation by his son Rupinderjit Singh Sandhu;

(ii) the petitioners are in arrears of rent.

3. The notice of the eviction petition was issued to the petitioners/tenants for 04.08.2022 as per the provisions of Rent Act, with direction to petitioners to file an application for leave to defend within a period of 15 days of service of notice. Petitioners failed to appear in the Court within the aforesaid statutory period and were proceeded against exparte on 04.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application on 01.09.2022 seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings. The said application was contested by respondent and the Rent Controller dismissed the said application vide order dated 06.03.2023. The petitioners being aggrieved by orders dated 04.08.2022 and 06.03.2023 have filed the present petition.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. The counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, contended that in the instant case no proper service of the petitioners was effected. That as per provisions of Section 38 (4) and (5) of the Rent Act, the summons in relation to rent petition, would be in form specified in Schedule III of Rent Act. That summons to petitioners were not issued in accordance with the aforesaid mandatory statutory provisions, as no summons were served at the place where the petitioners actually and voluntarily resides. That as the summons were not issued to the petitioners in specified form, and further the petitioners were not served in person, such service could not be treated as a proper service of the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that when the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the rent petition for the first time, they immediately approached the Court of Rent Controller, Ludhiana for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.08.2022 and the said application is dated 01.09.2022. The counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon Harvinder Pal Kaur and Another Vs. Kuldeep Singh Gurm @ Kuldeep Singh and Ors. 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 804 and Satish Kumar Vs. Dev Raj 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 102 and Manjeet Singh Vs. Manveer Pal Singh Gill 2022 (2) RCR (Rent) 288, has contended that as in the present case service of summons was not effected in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Rent Act, the application filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings dated 04.08.2022 deserves to be allowed. The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the mere request of the petitioners is to set aside exparte order dated 04.08.2022. That as per the ratio laid down by this Court in Smt. Sahib Kaur Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 620, the petitioners could be allowed to join the proceedings at any stage and the application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of delay. The counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Court of Rent Controller while dismissing the applicati