New Delhi, Dec. 24 -- The Supreme Court has sought a report from the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the conduct of a rent controller in Gurugram who passed an eviction order in a matter listed before another judge, without issuing notice to the affected tenant. "In our view, in a rent matter when the judge is on leave, passing an order by the in-charge judge on merits without notice prima facie is not tenable," a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi observed in an order dated December 17. The bench directed the high court's registrar general to submit a report after seeking explanations from the judge concerned and from the principal district and sessions judge at the Gurugram district courts. The court asked that the report explain how and in what manner the course adopted was justified, and clarify the procedure required to be followed when judges are on leave, including the extent to which an in-charge judge is empowered to pass orders. The report has been directed to be placed before the Supreme Court by February 2, when the matter will be taken up next. The order came on a petition filed by Anjali Foundation, a tenant occupying premises owned by Anil Mehra. The dispute between the parties relates to arrears of rent and fixation of provisional rent. The foundation approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on December 8, dismissed its petition seeking fixation of provisional rent as "infructuous", holding that since the rent controller had already passed an eviction order on November 24, the issue no longer survived. Appearing for the foundation, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted the circumstances in which the November 24 eviction order was passed. He submitted that the eviction case was pending before civil judge (junior division) Santosh, who was on leave, following which January 17 had been fixed as the next date of hearing. However, on the same day, the matter was placed before in-charge rent controller Hari Kishan at the Gurugram court, who passed an ex-parte eviction order without issuing notice to the foundation or granting it an opportunity to be heard. Although the foundation has agreed to vacate the premises by February 28, 2026, Rohatgi said the issue went beyond the immediate dispute. "Only in urgent cases can the in-charge judge pass an order granting interim protection. How did the in-charge judge assume jurisdiction in this matter?" he asked. The bench said that even though the petitioner had agreed to vacate, concerns remained regarding the propriety of court functioning and compliance with due process....