Civil Revision No. 4969 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4969 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.8.2010 Mohinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus Deepak Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) It has been specifically provided in Section 18-A(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, “that the tenant, on whom the service of summons is declared to have been validly made under sub- Section(3), shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction from the residential or scheduled building and/or non-residential building”. Therefore, before the application of tenant to contest the eviction petition is considered, it is incumbent upon the Rent Controller to hold that the service of summons has been validly made upon the tenant. The Rent Controller, in the present case, came to a conclusion that the service of summons was not effected upon the tenant as per proforma contained in Schedule II given under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. A perusal of the proforma of summons, as prescribed in Schedule II shows that it should be brought to the notice of the tenant in explicit terms that he has to appear before the Court within a period of 15 days of the service thereof and has to obtain the leave of Civil Revision No. 4969 of 2010 2 the Controller to contest the application for eviction. Since in the present case, summons were not in consonance with the requirement of law, the Rent Controller, Rajpura, was bound to grant leave to contest. Taking the above said mandate of law into consideration and the application along with affidavit, filed by the tenant to contest the petition. Rent Controller, Rajpura, was bound to grant leave to contest. In the totality of circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.7.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, suffers from no infirmity. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 9, 2010 “DK”