JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The petitioner herein is a tenant who was ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller on 08.02.2017. The relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed in order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case.

2. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1949 Act") for immediate delivery of possession of a hotel located at G.T.Road, Goraya. Section 13B of the 1949 Act is a special provision, which was subsequently added by the Amendment Act No. 9 of 2001 in the 1949 Act enabling the Non-Resident Indian to get immediate delivery of possession of their rented properties if they wish to come back to the country of their origin. In this case, the petition under Section 13B of the 1949 Act was filed on 28.10.2016. The petitioner (tenant) did not contest the same. He appeared on one of the hearings, but, thereafter, absented himself. Thereafter, an ex parte order was passed which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. An application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and decree has also been dismissed by the Rent Controller.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the petition under Section 13B of the 1949 Act was filed on 07.01.2016, whereas the 1949 Act was substituted by the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act") w.e.f. 30.11.2013. Hence, the petition under Section 13B of the old 1949 Act was not maintainable.

4. This Court has considered the submissions and analyzed the arguments of the learned counsel. Undoubtedly, the 1995 Act was enforced w.e.f. 30.11.2013, however, there was litigation with regard to the powers of the Rent Controller. Subsequently, the Punjab Rent (Amendment) Act, 2014, was made applicable w.e.f. 29.08.2014. Moreover, in Section 24 of the 1995 Act, there is a parallel provision authorizing the Non-Resident Indian to file a petition for immediate delivery of possession. However, the tenant has not suffered any prejudice. Even if the petition was filed under the new Act, the same would have been tried by the same Rent Controller. Even under the new Act, the tenant is required to seek leave to contest. Therefore, it can be made out from the circumstances that the tenant has not suffered any prejudice. Moreover, the Courts must always grant leave in favour of substantive justice rather than rejecting the petitions merely on the grounds of technical objections. This Court has analyzed this particular question in its decision in M/s Green Roadways/Green Carriers v. Darshan Singh Bhambra (Civil Revision No. 4308 of 2015, decided on 28.02.2020). The relevant portion is extracted as under:-

"At the outset, it must be noticed that Punjab Rent Act, 1995 was enforced with effect from 30.11.2013. However, powers of Rent Controller were given to the Executive Officers. Thus, a writ petition was filed in this regard. During the pendency of the writ petition, the eviction petitions before the Rent Controller were being filed in the entire State of Punjab, as per the interim order passed by this court, under the provisions of the 1949 Act. Thereafter, Division Bench disposed of the writ petition after noticing that Punjab Rent (Amendment) Act, 2014 has been enforced, conferring powers upon the Subordinate Judges Ist Class as Rent Authorities and the District & Sessions Judges as Appellate Authorities. The order passed by the Division Bench is extracted as under:-

"Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) wherein they have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of ce