Judgment

Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.

Under challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 13.2.2023 passed by Rent Controller, Jagraon vide which learned Rent Controller while dismissing the application filed by applicant/tenant Harminder Singh @ Billu @ Harwinder Singh for grant of leave to contest in the rent petition filed against him by respondent Sukhbir Singh Sidhu @ Sukhvir Singh, had directed the applicant to vacate the demised premises within a period of two months from the date of order. However, it was clarified that such order would not bar the right of the applicant to file the review application in spirit of the Punjab Rent Act , 1995.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner/landlord Sukhbir Singh Sidhu @ Sukhvir Singh, a Non-Resident Indian (hereinafter referred to as NRI) having residence in U.K. had brought a petition under Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act , 1995 against respondent/tenant Harminder Singh @ Billu @ Harwinder Singh, seeking his eviction from the shop forming part of MC No.B-V-1307 situated at village Agwar Gujjran-I, Tehsil Road, Jagraon. Notice of the petition was sent to respondent/tenant, who put in appearance and filed an application for leave to contest, which was opposed by the petitioner/landlord and vide the impugned order dated 13.2.2023 leave to contest was declined to respondent/tenant; resultantly the petition was allowed. For ready reference, Para No.17 dealing with relief granted is being reproduced as under:

17. The petitioner fully proved that he is NRI, copy of passport is on the file and it is also proved on record that he is owner of the property in dispute. As per the petition filed by him he has averred that he want to settle in India and want to spend his remaining life in India and the tenant can not dictate its term to the landlord when there is nothing on record from which any inference could be drawn that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. So, I am of the considered view that there is no triable issue in favour of the respondent on which the leave to defend may be granted to the respondent to contest the present petition. So, the application filed by the respondent for leave to defend is hereby dismissed. The present petition is allowed and the ejectment order is passed against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner. The respondent is directed to vacate the demised shop within a period of two months from the date of order. However, this order will not bar the right of the applicant to file the review application in spirit of The Punjab Rent Act , 1995 Act. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned to record room.

3. Such order left the respondent/tenant aggrieved and he has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition. The landlord had filed a caveat petition and put in appearance through counsel.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

5. The grouse of the revision petitioner is that after dismissal of the application filed by him seeking leave to contest, learned Rent Controller, Jagraon should have granted him time to file review application as provided under Section 38(7)(e) of Punjab Rent Act , 1995 within a period of 10 days from dismissal of the application but it was not so done and learned Rent Controller passed order for ejectment of the tenant forthwith, in that way a composite order was passed, which is not legally permissible. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has referred to various judgments i.e. Madan Lal Versus Salwinder Singh , passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CR No.4564 of 2022, Prabhveer Singh Versu