Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1928 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. Salwinder Singh

2022-10-29

HARKESH MANUJA

body2022
JUDGMENT Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - By way of present revision petition challenge has been laid to an order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Rent Authority (NRI Cases), Jalandhar, whereby, prayer for leave to contest made by the petitionertenant has been declined and simultaneously order of eviction has been passed directing him to vacant the premises in question within a period of three months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed at the instance of respondent/landlord seeking ejectment of petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises i.e. shop/property being part of House No.357, Dashmesh Nagar, Hoshiarpur Road, Rama Mandi, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 3. On notice, an application for leave to contest was filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant. It is the said application, which has been dismissed by the learned Rent Authority (NRI Cases), Jalandhar, by passing the impugned order dated 30.08.2022, which has now been challenged by way of present revision petition. 4. Notice of motion. 5. At this stage, Mr. A.P.S.Rehan, Advocate, appears on behalf of caveator/respondent-landlord and submits that he is ready with his arguments and as such, the matter is being heard today on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Section 38(7)(e) of the Act submits that the Rent Authority has committed an error of law while passing a composite order of declining his leave to contest besides directing him to vacate the tenanted-premises. He submits that as an effect of the composite impugned order, a statutory right available to him under Clause-(e) to Sub-Section 7 of Section 38 of the Act of filing review before the Rent Authority within a period of 10 days of denial of leave to contest has been taken away. Clause-(e) to Sub-Section 7 of Section 38 of the Act is reproduced for reference: ' where the leave to contest under clause? is denied to the tenant he may file an application for review before the Rent authority within ten days of such denial and the Rent Authority shall endeavour to dispose of such application within seven days of its filing. ' 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon an order dated 22.08.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.2117 of 2022 (O&M). 8. ' 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon an order dated 22.08.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.2117 of 2022 (O&M). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord relies upon sub-Section 5 of Section 50 of the Act so as to contend that 'every order or decision of rent authority' under the Act is appealable and an appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority wherein both the question of law and facts except orders or decision of the Rent Authority made under Section 21 of Section 33 of the Act could be assailed. Sub-Section 5 of Section 50 of the Act is reproduced below for reference: 'an appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority from every order or decision of Rent Authority made under this Act both on question of law and facts: Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order or decision of the Rent Authority made under Section 21 or Section 33 of this Act. ' 9. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as the relevant provisions referred to by the respective counsel. 10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, I am of the view that by passing a composite order of declining leave to contest besides directing the petitioner-tenant to handover vacant possession to the respondent-landlord simultaneously, the learned Rent Authority committed an error of law. A perusal of Clause-(e) to SubSection 7 of Section 38 of the Act, provides an opportunity to tenant to file an application for review before the Rent Authority within a period of 10 days from the date of denial of leave to contest which, rent Authority is enjoined to dispose of within a period of 7 days of its filing. As a result of passing of composite order, the statutory right/remedy available to petitioner-tenant has been taken away. 11. As a result of passing of composite order, the statutory right/remedy available to petitioner-tenant has been taken away. 11. No doubt, on a comprehensive reading of Section 50 and specifically Sub-Section 5 thereof, one can see through that the order impugned herein by way of present revision petition could have even been challenged before the appellate Authority, however, considering the peculiar fact wherein both the parties have already been heard and the learned counsel representing respondent-landlord has nothing much to point out or oppose as regards the non-compliance of Clause-(e) to Sub-Section 7 of Section 38 of the Act, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Rent Authority, granting opportunity to the petitioner to avail his statutory right of filing review under Clause-(e) to Sub-Section 7 of Section 38 of the Act, within a period of 10 days from today which shall be decided in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed. 12. It is made clear that the present revision petition arising out of an order passed by the Rent Authority is being entertained directly by this Court in distinctive facts of the present case wherein the impugned order is apparently in violation of the statutory mandate of Clause-(e) to SubSection 7 of Section 38 of the Act, besides, keeping in view the interest of the respondent-landlord as referring of the petitioner-tenant to the first appellate Authority so as to enable him to challenge the impugned order may further delay the cause of respondent-landlord himself. 13. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.