IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-332-2021 Date of decision : 18.05.2026 Meet Kumar ... Petitioner Versus Alkh Chand ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority, S.A. S. Nagar (Mohali) under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”) vide which the appeal of the respondent/landlord has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per the case of the respondent, the tenancy was created by virtue of rent note dated 05.12.2017, which rent note was subsequent to the date on which the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1995 Act’), came into force, i.e. w.e.f. 30.11.2013. It is submitted that the rent petition was filed on 18.02.2019 which is also subsequent to the enforcement of the said Act but the eviction petition has been filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act. It is argued that as per Section 75 of the 1995 Act, on the commencement of 1995 Act, the 1949 Act stood repealed and it is only the cases in which the premises were let out prior to the commencement of the 1995 Act, that are to be governed by the 1949 Act. It is argued that thus, the petition under 1949 Act was not maintainable. It is further submitted that the sole ground on which the eviction was sought was non-payment of rent and even as per the case of the respondent, the legal notice requiring the petitioner to pay rent was issued on 07.01.2019, only providing 15 days to pay the rent and the eviction petition was filed on 18.02.2019 without the period of two months having elapsed. It is submitted that as per the provision of Section 20 (2)(a) of the 1995 Act, it is the mandate of law that the eviction petition can be filed only after a period of two months, after the notice in the form specified in schedule VII of the Act has been served and the tenant still does not pay the rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the said provision, the petition was premature.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that a perusal of the eviction petition would show that it was specifically stated in paras 2 and 3, that the present petitioner was occupying the premises for the last more than six years and had paid rent upto 30.11.2017 and subsequently, rent note dated 05.12.2017 was executed in which in addition to the rent of Rs.8000/- per month, 10% increase clause was provided. It is submitted that from the said averments, it is apparent that tenancy was prior to coming into force of the 1995 Act. It is argued that although, counsel for the petitioner had appeared before the Rent Controller but no written statement was filed by the present petitioner and thus, averments made in the said eviction petition were not controverted. It is argued that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise pleas without even having controverted the said specific plea of the respondent by filing written statement, much less, leading any evidence regarding the same. It is further pointed out that even before the Appellate Authority, no such argument to the effect that the eviction petition is not maintainable under the 1949 Act was raised and thus, the petitioner is estopped from raising the said argument before this Court.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent and is of the opinion that the present revision petition is meritless, deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. In orde