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

• The case involves a revision petition filed by Sahib Singh (Petitioner) challenging an order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, which dismissed his application seeking dismissal of an eviction petition on grounds of non-maintainability (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The eviction petition was filed by Gurjinder Kaur (Respondent No.1), the landlady, under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, citing arrears of rent as the ground for eviction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The lease deed between the parties was dated 29.01.2014 and was not a registered document (!) (!) (!) .
• The Petitioner argued that Section 4 of the 1995 Act mandates a registered document for a valid tenancy; therefore, without registration, the eviction petition was not maintainable (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Petitioner relied on the judgment in M/s A.R. Ventures and others vs. M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. to support the argument that the eviction petition was non-maintainable due to non-registration (!) (!) (!) .
• The Respondent also relied on the A.R. Ventures judgment but argued that Section 4(2) of the 1995 Act is directory in nature, not mandatory, and thus the eviction petition was correctly dismissed by the Rent Controller (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court examined Sections 2(c), 2(m), Section 4, and Section 20 of the 1995 Act to determine the validity of the tenancy and the maintainability of the eviction petition (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court held that the right of a landlord to seek eviction under Section 20 of the 1995 Act has never been made subject to the registration of the lease deed under Section 4 of the same Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court observed that Section 4(2) of the 1995 Act is directory in nature because no specific consequences are prescribed for non-compliance, and strict enforcement would defeat the legislative object of resolving disputes between landlords and tenants (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited & Others v. State of Haryana to support the interpretation that provisions using "shall" can be directory if non-compliance does not render the agreement void or cause serious public inconvenience (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court noted that if Section 4(2) were held mandatory, it could work against tenants who might be deemed trespassers if they occupy premises without a registered lease, thereby undermining the protective intent of the 1995 Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The Court clarified that non-registration of the lease deed under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, only affects its admissibility as evidence and does not invalidate the tenancy or oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Consequently, the Court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it, upholding the maintainability of the eviction petition despite the non-registration of the lease deed (!) (!) .
• The Court directed the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, to dispose of the eviction petition (filed in 2018) within one year from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2023:PHHC: 146613

CR-1963-2021

--1--

114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-1963-2021

Decided on:-17.11.2023

Sahib Singh

....Petitioner

vs.

Gurjinder Kaur and another

....Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate and

Mr. Aman Joon, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with

Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been

laid to an order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent

Controller, Ludhiana, whereby, an application filed at the instance of

petitioner-tenant, seeking dismissal of the eviction petition on account

of its non-maintainability, stands dismissed.

2.

Briefly stating, respondent No.1, claiming herself to be

the landlady qua the demised premises i.e. property No.B.XVIII-

4221/329ZA/1, situated in Village Jawaddi, Model Town Extension-A,

Part-II Block-A, Ludhiana, filed an eviction petition invoking Section

20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “1995

SONIKA

2023.11.29 17:41

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this docum