tenant may file an application for review befor e the Rent Authority within 10 d ays of such denial. The provision is couched in m andatory terms and is intende d to ensure speedy disposal of rent cases, whi c h are in their nature sum m ary proceedings. T h e statute has fixed a strict ti m e limit of 10 days and canno t be diluted by permitting belated review applicatio n s on vague pleas. 10. Th e petitioner’s contention that t h e order was not uploaded on the website cannot come to his rescue. The requir e ment under the law is not tha t an order must be u p loaded online. The requireme n t is that the order be pronounce d in Court, which w as admittedly done in this ca s e. If the petitioner or his cou n sel desired a copy of the order, it was always op e n to them to apply for a certi f ied copy. No such application was made. The p etitioner cannot, therefore, plead ignorance or un a vailability of the order to justif y his inaction. 11. Th e legislative intent behind Sect i on 38(7)(b) of the Act is to af f ord one final and li m ited opportunity to the tenant t o seek review of the order refu s ing leave to defend , but this opportunity has to be e xercised within 10 days. Once the tenant allows t hat period to lapse despite k nowledge of the order, the R ent Authority is j u stified in proceeding to pas s the ejectment order. The R ent Controller has r ightly noted in the order dated 23.12.2024 that no review peti t ion was filed withi n 10 days, and accordingly passe d the ejectment order. 12. Th e reliance placed by the petitio n er on screenshots of the website is misplaced, as t h ose screenshots do not conclusively establish that the order w as unavailable to h im. The determinative fact rem a ins that the order was pronou n ced in open Court, w hich constitutes sufficient com m unication of the order. 13. In v iew of the above, the plea raise d by the petitioner is nothing bu t an afterthought to overcome the consequences o f his own inaction. The petitio n er,
