JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, exercising the power of Appellate Authority under The Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act'), confirming and upholding the findings of learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 21.07.2022 passing the eviction order against the petitioner due to non-filing of affidavit/application for leave to contest within the period of limitation.

2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the present revision petition are that respondents-landlords filed an eviction petition bearing No.82 of 2022 on 30.03.2022 under Sections 20 and 24 of the Act (Annexure P-6) for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the grounds of i) non- payment of rent and ii) personal necessity of the premises by the respondent No.1-Dr.R.C.Khosla, aged 82 years, a senior citizen.

3. After hearing both the sides and examining the records, learned Rent Controller noted that the petitioner was duly served through registered cover and AD in the present rent petition on 04.04.2022 and appeared in the Court for the first time on 07.04.2022. Thereafter on 25.04.2022, the petitioner (respondent before the learned Rent Controller) was proceeded against ex parte and again joined the proceedings on the same day at about 4:30 pm through his counsel by filing memo of appearance. The learned Rent Controller further observed that petitioner filed a leave to defend the petition after lapse of 30 days from the date of his first appearance in the petition, and further noting that there is no provision under the law to extend the time for filing leave to defend. Consequently, learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction, assessed the rent for the period from March 2018 till 31.07.2022 at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month and interest thereon, and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of demise premises within two months to the respondents-landlords (petitioners before the learned Rent Controller).

4. Aggrieved with the order of learned Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Appellate Authority but same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.07.2023, observing no infirmity in the order of learned Rent Controller.

5. Being dissatisfied with the orders of eviction passed against the petitioner by the learned authorities below, filed this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions to challenge the validity of the orders;

i) that the learned Courts below failed to take note of the fact that summons according to sub Section (4) of Section 38 of the Act in form specified in Schedule III of the Act were not served upon the petitioner, whereas service of summons as per Section 38(7)(b) of the Act read with form specified in Schedule III are mandatory. It is in case of service of such summons only, the petitioner would have been aware of the fact of filing of the application for leave to contest within 15 days period. The learned counsel thus contended that since there is non- compliance of the provisions of the Act with respect to service upon the petitioner, the observations of the Courts below that petitioner was duly served is indefensible in the eyes of law. Learned counsel stated that it is on 07.04.2022, the counsel of the petitioner Sh. S. N. Momi, Advocate was present in the Court of learned Rent Controller Jalandhar and was told by the learned Authority to put his appearance on behalf of the petitioner in the case in hand. Accordingly, as the learned counsel Sh. S. N. Momi and Sh. R. K. Nagina, Advocates, who represent the petitioner in other ejectment petition filed earlier by the respondents, Sh. S. N. Momi, Advocate, filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not provided with the copies of the peti