IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (117)

Date of Decision:-25.02.2026 Rajeev Kumar ……Petitioner Versus Nadem Mohammad ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Ms. Yashika Walia, Advocate, and Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jagadhri whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off due to non-filing of the written statement.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the rent petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the petitioner. On 24.03.2025, the petitioner/respondent appeared before the learned Trial Court for the first time. Vide order dated 10.11.2025, the learned Trial Court struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of the written statement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate and reasonable opportunity to file the written statement. It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner had been unwell since 18.04.2025 and remained admitted in a hospital at Ludhiana for treatment, which continued till 15.12.2025. The said fact is stated to be supported by medical records appended with the present petition. It is contended that striking off the defence of the petitioner at this stage would cause grave prejudice to his rights and would adversely affect the fair and proper adjudication of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that one final opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file the written statement, in the interest of justice.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

5. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent. 6. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has adopted an overly strict approach in striking off the defence of the petitioner.

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the present case, the present petition is allowed, without commenting upon the merits of the controversy. The impugned order dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jagadhri, is hereby set aside qua the petitioner–Rajeev Kumar, subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Jagadhri.

8. The petitioner-Rajeev Kumar shall appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed and on his production of receipt qua deposition of costs, the trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for filing of written statement.

9. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to learned learned Rent Controller, Jagadhri, for compliance.

10. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE

25.02.2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No