RANJIT KAUR MADAAN Vs. SURINDER SINGH PELIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a tenant who has a grievance with the validity of the impugned order vide which his application for leave to defend was declined by the learned Rent Controller.

(2.) It is argued with a certain amount of vehemence that learned Rent Controller ought to have allowed the leave to defend in view of the fact that there were arugeable points which had been raised by the petitioner herein. It is pointed out that the petitioner tenant had raised a precise plea that there are more than one premises other than the tenanted accommodation which is available for user by the respondent-landlord.

(3.) There is plethora of law on the point that even if an NRI under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinfter referred to as "the Act") owns more than one premises, it is open to him to decide to relate the special provisions of Section 13-B of the Act to one particular premises. He cannot, of course, extend it to more than one premises. Discretion is, of course, of that of the landlord to decide the premises in respect of which he would like to file a plea for ejectment in terms of provisions of Section 13-B of the Act.