IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.01.2026 SUSHIL KUMAR …Petitioner Versus NEELAM GOYAL …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.(Oral)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-3) vide which the Court of Rent Controller, Faridabad appointed a Local Commissioner for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the demised premises had been sublet and whether its user had been changed and order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby objections to the Local Commissioner Report, were rejected. 2. An eviction petition (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the respondent/landlord (Neelam Goyal), under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’), seeking eviction of the present petitioner/tenant (Sushil Kumar) from the demised premises (fully described in the eviction petition) situated in Sector 75, Greater Faridabad, inter alia, on the grounds of arrears of rent; change of user; subletting and personal bona fide necessity.

3. An application (Annexure P-2) was moved under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for ex parte appointment of a Local Commissioner to ascertain the fact about subletting, the tenant having ceased to be occupying the premises as also change of user.

4. The said application was allowed by way of the impugned order dated 16.12.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner/tenant put in appearance and filed written statement along with an application (Annexure P-5) to not consider the report of the Local Commissioner. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course adopted by the Court of Rent Controller is unknown to law and that it was for the respondent/landlord to prove her case by leading cogent evidence. He submits that even while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/tenant, the Court of Rent Controller did not give any findings and simply observed that the objections be raised at the time of cross-examination.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and that if such a course had not been adopted, the petitioner/tenant would have restored the premises to the respondent/landlord with a view to disprove his case.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court of Rent Controller, Faridabad, adopted a course totally unknown to law. The grounds on which eviction was sought were non-payment of rent; personal necessity; subletting and change of the user of the property from residential to commercial. The application sought ex parte appointment of a Local Commissioner at the time of institution of the eviction petition. The Court of Rent Controller, Faridabad, without considering the matter from the correct prospective and in fact, without considering the legal position, appointed a Local Commissioner, who gave his report as well. It was not for the Court to collect evidence on behalf of the respondent-landlord and it was for the respondent-landlord to prove the grounds on which eviction had been sought. The impugned orders are, therefore, palpably illegal and are liable to be set aside.

10. In view of the same, the instant revision petition is allowed, the orders dated 16.12.2023 and 11.11.2025 are set aside and the report of the Local Commissioner is ordered to be struck off from the record of the Rent Controller.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE

19.01.2026 himanshu