KRISHAN LAL DUA Vs. SHANDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant/petitioner has filed the present revision petition assailing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar rejecting an application for leave to contest the eviction petition, filed in an eviction petition by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) At the outset, it is appropriate to notice that Section 13-B of the Act enables the Non-Resident Indians (a separate category created) to recover immediate possession of the residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building provided he/she/they fulfill the conditions specified in the Act, which is extracted as under: -

(3.) Section 18-A of the Act lays down the procedure for disposal of applications filed under Section 13-A or Section 13-B of the Act. Sub Section (4) of Section 18-A of the Act provides that a tenant would have no right to contest the prayer for eviction filed by the owner of the building unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application seeking his eviction and successfully obtains a leave from the Court of the learned Rent Controller. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini 2005 (12) SCC 778, has laid down that a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be "sufficient to rebut strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine". The Court went on to hold that the leave to contest should not be granted unless the tenant makes out a strong case for leave to contest.