IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-219-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 Manohar Lal & another ………..… Petitioners Versus Amrinder Singh Poonia & another ….…..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondents.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. Finding divergence in views taken by different Single Benches of this Court on the issue of validity of a composite order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the application filed by petitioners (tenants) seeking ‘leave to contest’ as well as directing their eviction, the matter has been referred to Larger Bench and is before this Court.

2. A few facts, necessary to notice for answering the reference are that respondent No.1 (landlord), being NRI, filed an eviction petition under provisions of Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the petitioners (tenants) moved an application in terms of provisions of section 38(7)(b) seeking ‘leave to contest’ the said petition. The Rent Controller, SAS Nagar (Mohali), by way of a composite order dated 16.10.2023, which is impugned herein, while declining the application seeking ‘leave to contest’ the petition, ordered for eviction of the tenants. The tenants (petitioners herein) assailed the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali), but the appeal was also dismissed which is under challenge in the instant revision petition.

3. When the matter came up for hearing before a Single Bench of this Court, an issue was raised by the petitioners (tenants) that the Rent Controller by passing a composite order of dismissal of their application seeking ‘leave to contest’ and directing their eviction simultaneously had deprived them of an opportunity to seek review of order dated 16.10.2023 and that such denial seriously prejudiced them in exercise of their statutory rights.

4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) as well as learned counsel representing respondent (landlord) relied upon various judgments of this Court on the issue, the Single Bench noticing the conflict in judicial pronouncements referred the matter to a larger Bench. The questions posed in the referral order dated 02.09.2025 are extracted herein-under:

(i) Whether non-grant of ten days’ period to file review against dismissal of application for leave to defend as envisaged under Section 38(7)(e)

of The Punjab Rent Act, 1995, renders the eviction order nullity.

Or (ii) As to whether such requirement is directory and substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 38 would be sufficient if the composite order of dismissal of application for leave to defend and eviction order is passed and time is granted to handover the vacant possession to the petitioner.

5. While the tenancies in the State of Punjab were earlier regulated by East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the 1949 Act’), the said Act stood repealed by the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the 1995 Act’). Although, in the present case the petitioners had been inducted as tenant before the 1995 Act came into force w.e.f. 30.11.2013, but by virtue of savings clause in section 75(2) of 1995 Act and also provisions of Section 24(3) itself, any eviction petition by NRI landlord is to be instituted under the new Act.

6. The relevant provisions under the 1949 Act and 1995 Act, pertaining to the remedies available to a tenant upon dismissal of his application seeking “leave to contest” eviction petition filed by NRI landlord are juxtaposed herein-under to check out the changes brought about by the new Act:

Remedy against order of Rent Controller declining leave to contest :

7. A conspicuous difference is easily discernable upon perusal of the relevant provisions under the two Acts with regard to filing of an application fo