JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby an application filed on behalf of petitioner-tenant seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for leave to defend on his behalf has been dismissed thereby resulting into acceptance of eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent-landlord by directing the petitioner-tenant to handover the vacant and physical possession of the demised premised.

2. Briefly stating, in the present case the respondent-landlord while claiming himself to be an NRI; having American passport filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant qua building/flat No.1257/2 Sector 43-B, Chandigarh; invoking Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as the '1949 Act').

2.1. In the eviction petition, it was pleaded that the property in question was rented out to the petitioner-tenant on 01.05.2021 @ Rs.12,000/- per month, who failed to even pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2022 and besides it, the same was even required by the respondent-landlord for his personal use as he wanted to return to India and utilize the same during his visits for his stay so as to keep in touch with his relatives and childhood friends. It was also pleaded that the respondent-landlord had neither rented out nor got vacated and was not even in occupation of any other property in U.T., Chandigarh.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant put in appearance through his Advocate, who filed his power of attorney on 15.07.2023 before the Rent Controller and hearing of the eviction petition was adjourned to 04.08.2023. Thereafter, the eviction petition was deferred for 01.09.2023 and on the said date, the petitioner-tenant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in moving an application for leave to defend along with application seeking grant of leave as well while submitting that neither any summon nor notice was received by the tenant nor even his counsel informed him that the eviction petition was filed under Section 13-B of 1949 Act and an application for leave to defend was to be filed within 15 days. Further, it was also pleaded that an agreement to sell qua the property in question was executed between the parties and based thereupon even a suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioner-tenant on 04.10.2023 before the Civil Court; which was pending consideration.

4. The respondent-landlord filed his reply to the application moved by the petitioner-tenant for seeking condonation of delay of 31 days in filing application for leave to defend while submitting that there was no provision under 1949 Act which enabled the Rent Controller to condone the delay and thus, prayed for dismissal of the same.

5. The Rent Controller vide its order dated 12.02.2024 dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. Aggrieved thereof, the instant petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-filing of application for grant of leave to defend within 15 days of appearance occurred on account of bona fide miscommunication between the petitioner and his lawyer, who never informed the petitioner-tenant of his right of filing an application for grant of leave to defend within 15 days of appearance before the Rent Controller.

Learned counsel further submits that passing of the impugned order by the Rent Controller has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner-tenant and as such instead of non-suiting him for technical reasons, he was required to be permitted to file his substantial defence, so that his substantial rights were adjudicated upon as per merits. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the decision rendered in the case of Director Education and Anr. vs. Mohd. Shamim and Ors, reported a