IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120 Date of Decision:-24.02.2026 NAVPREET KAUR … Petitioner Versus RAJNEESH TEWARI ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Tuteja, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), read conjointly with Constitution of India Article 227 thereof, impugning the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional correctness of the order dated 28.01.2026 rendered by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking leave to defend under Section 18-A of the Act and has, in consequence thereof, proceeded to pass a summary order of eviction against the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act.

2. The respondent–landlord, asserting his status as a Non- Resident Indian (NRI) and expressing a definitive intention to resettle in India, instituted an ejectment petition under the provisions of the Act, claiming to be the owner–landlord of the demised premises. The petition was founded upon the ground of bona fide personal necessity, it being averred that he intends to occupy the premises to facilitate the medical treatment and personal care of his mother, who is stated to be suffering from multiple and serious ailments.

3. Upon service of notice, the petitioner–tenant entered appearance and filed an application seeking leave to defend in terms of Section 18-A of the Act. The said application was contested by the respondent–landlord and, vide the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller declined the prayer for leave to defend and consequently passed a summary order of ejectment against the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court through the present petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have meticulously perused the entire paper-book and material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and suffers from patent infirmities. It is urged that the learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner in their proper perspective and has erroneously presumed the ownership of the respondent–landlord. According to the petitioner, the document dated 10.01.2019 does not, ipso facto, constitute a valid conveyance of ownership in favour of the respondent and is merely an administrative communication regarding transfer of rights pursuant to a registered Will. It is further contended that the mere production of an attested or notarized photocopy of such document does not amount to legal proof of title.

6.1. It is additionally argued that the alleged personal necessity is neither genuine nor bona fide. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that earlier efforts were made by Smt. Neelima Tewari to secure vacation of the premises for the purpose of sale, and that property dealers had visited the premises. An affidavit of one Tejinder Singh has been relied upon to suggest an intention to purchase the property. It is further contended that Smt. Neelima Tewari is presently residing at Patiala and is receiving medical treatment there, and that the respondent–landlord and his family possess residential accommodation at Patiala. It is also emphasized that the respondent–landlord has not physically returned to India and has instituted the proceedings through a power of attorney.

6.2. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has categorically denied the execution of the rent agreements dated 15.02.2017 and 15.02.2018, terming them forged and fabricated documents. It is argued that when the fou