IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (126) CR No. 2996 of 2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 07.04.2026 Harpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dr. Parneet Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh Maan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parneet Singh Sohi, Advocate for the respondent-Caveator.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside/quashing the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby application filed by petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

1949 Act’), was dismissed.

2. The present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner–tenant challenging the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. RC/187/2023, whereby the application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent–landlord under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act was dismissed and, consequently, the eviction petition was allowed. The respondent–landlord, claiming to be a Non-Resident Indian and owner of the demised premises bearing Flat No. 1257/2, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh, had sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity, asserting that the premises had been let out to the petitioner for a limited period under a rent agreement dated 30.04.2021. The petitioner, in his application for leave to defend, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that the property had already been agreed to be sold to him vide agreement to sell dated 07.12.2019, pursuant to which possession had been delivered and part consideration paid. The said plea was controverted by the respondent by denying execution of any such agreement and alleging the documents to be forged. The learned Rent Controller, upon consideration of the material on record, held that no bona fide triable issue was made out and dismissed the application for leave to defend, resulting in the passing of the eviction order against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Rent Controller is liable to be set aside as the same is arbitrary, contrary to the facts on record and not sustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed without proper appreciation of the material placed on record. It is contended that the learned Rent Controller has failed to consider that the petitioner had specifically pleaded that no rent agreement was ever executed between the parties and that possession of the property had been handed over to him on 07.12.2019 pursuant to an agreement to sell, along with payment of part consideration, which is supported by receipts duly signed by the respondent. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the respondent was not present in India on the date of execution of the agreement to sell, involve disputed questions of fact which could only be adjudicated upon evidence during trial. It is also contended that the learned Rent Controller has erred in holding that no triable issue arises, despite the petitioner having raised a specific plea that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties, thereby disentitling the respondent from invoking the provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act. It is thus submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the true facts and legal position and is liable to be set aside.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Parneet Singh Sohi, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 does not