IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.10.2025 Baldev Krishan … Petitioner Versus Satish Chawla … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P-14), passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, vide which the prayer for grant of stay was declined.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 24(1)(b) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Rent Act’) was instituted by the respondent-landlord (Satish Chawla) against the present petitioner-tenant (Baldev Krishan) for eviction from Shop No.B-IV-2002-2003, consisting of lower ground floor and upper ground floor, situated at Chaura Bazaar, Ludhiana.

2.1 An application (Annexure P-2) under Section 38(7)(b) of the Rent Act was moved by the petitioner-tenant for grant of leave to contest the said petition, which was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-3).

3. Vide order dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-4), the application for leave to contest was dismissed and consequently, the eviction petition was allowed. However, a right was given to the petitioner-tenant as per the provisions to Section 38(7)(e) of the Rent Act to institute a review within a period of ten days.

3.1 The review application (Annexure P-5) was duly instituted within the aforesaid period, which was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-6).

4. In the interregnum, CR-1534-2025 was filed by the respondent- landlord seeking expeditious disposal of the execution petition filed by him pursuant to the eviction petition having been allowed. The said revision petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby a direction was issued to the Executing Court to decide the execution proceedings expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.

4.1 Since, during the pendency of the revision petition, execution proceedings were continuing, the petitioner-tenant instituted CR-5022-2025, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-8), whereby the Court concerned was directed to hear arguments in the review application and decide the same within a week. It was also ordered that till the review application is decided, the order of attachment would not be given effect to.

4.2 Subsequently, the review application was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2025 (Annexure P-9). Against the said order, an appeal (Annexure P-11) was preferred. It is in this appeal that the request for stay was made, which was declined, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Appellate Authority erred in not granting the stay on the premise that grant of stay would violate the directions issued in CR-1534-2025 (Annexure P-7). He submits that being first appeal, stay ought to have been granted.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable, as it has been preferred against the order dismissing the review application and not against the eviction order. He submits that this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings. He further submits that even otherwise, as per the decision of the Rent Controller, a sum of more than Rs.56 lakhs is due as arrears of rent and not even a single penny has been paid. He also submits that the respondent-landlord is 99% disabled and the rent from the shop in dispute is the only source of income, and that right from the first day of tenancy, no rent has been paid except Rs.10,000/- paid initially.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the aforesaid submissions and