Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

• Case Details: The case is Sahib Singh vs. Gurjinder Kaur & Anr., decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 17-11-2023 (CR No. 1963 of 2021), involving a revision petition against an order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana (!) (!) .

• Core Issue: The primary legal question was whether an eviction petition filed under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, is maintainable if the underlying lease deed is unregistered, as argued by the tenant relying on Section 4 of the Act (!) (!) .

• Statutory Provisions: The judgment analyzes Sections 2(c), 2(m), 4, and 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, alongside Sections 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 52 of the Easements Act to define landlord, tenant, and the requirements for eviction (!) (!) (!) .

• Nature of Section 4(2): The Court held that the provision requiring registration of tenancy agreements under Section 4(2) of the 1995 Act is directory, not mandatory. Non-registration does not invalidate the agreement or oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller (!) (!) (!) .

• Legislative Intent: The Court reasoned that the object of the 1995 Act is to resolve landlord-tenant disputes effectively; interpreting registration as mandatory would defeat this purpose and could act as a "double-edged sword" against tenants who might be treated as trespassers without protection (!) (!) (!) .

• Precedents Relied Upon: The judgment cites M/s A.R. Ventures and others vs. M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. (2021) to support the directory nature of Section 4(2), and references the Supreme Court's decision in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited & Others v. State of Haryana regarding the interpretation of "shall" and directory vs. mandatory provisions (!) (!) (!) .

• Consequences of Non-Registration: While non-registration affects the admissibility of the lease deed as evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, it does not divest the landlord of the right to seek eviction if other grounds under Section 20 are met (!) .

• Outcome: The revision petition challenging the Rent Controller's order was dismissed, affirming that the eviction petition was maintainable despite the unregistered lease deed (!) (!) .

• Direction to Lower Court: The High Court directed the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, to dispose of the pending eviction petition within one year of receiving the certified copy of this order (!) .