ASHOK GOEL Vs. WING COMMANDER HARBHAJAN SINGH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 03.04.2010 by which his application filed under Section 18-A (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') seeking leave to defend the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act in respect of the annexe portion above garage of House No. 1592, Sector 33D, Chandigarh has been declined.

(2.) In short, the landlord filed petition under Section 13-B of the Act in respect of the demised premises which was allegedly let out in October 2005 @ Rs. 5000/- per month with 10% increase every year. It is alleged by the landlord that he is holding Indian passport and permanent resident card issued by the United States of America. He had taken immigration visa on 18.10.2005 for residing with his daughter Ms. Gagandeep Bhatia who was working at that time in USA. They had gone to USA for an uncertain period but due to recession in USA his daughter Ms. Gagandeep Bhatia is out of job and is to come back to India. She is 37 years of age and unmarried. They require independent and separate accommodation for her, who is dependent upon him. In order to contest the eviction petition, the tenant applied for leave to defend under Section 18-A (5) of the Act in which he alleged that the landlord does not fall within the definition of 'Non Resident Indian' and possess sufficient accommodation. The application was contested by the landlord by filing reply. The learned Rent Controller, however, vide his order dated 3.4.2010 dismissed the application for leave to defend and ordered eviction of the tenant which lead to the filing of the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant argued that the landlord has got one kanal house in which there are three rooms, therefore, the demised premises is required only as an additional accommodation by him. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Mrs. Kushal Takhar v. Gurinder Singh, 2009 4 RCR(Civ) 619. He has further argued that the landlord does not fall within the definition of NRI as he had gone to America only for a short duration whereas the word used under Section 13-B is "Settled". He has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, 2001 1 RCR(Rent) 33.