KRISHAN CHAND Vs. BALBIR KAUR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which an application filed by the tenant under Section 18 -A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') seeking leave to defend the application filed by the landlady under Section 13 -B of the Act, has been declined.

(2.) IN brief, the case set up by the landlady is that she is the owner of House No. 592, Sector 20 -A, Chandigarh, which was transferred in her name by the Estate Office, Chandigarh in the year 2004 vide letter dated 28.12.2004. The said premises comprises of Ist floor and 2nd floor out of which ground floor is in her possession whereas Ist floor is in possession of Respondent No. 1 (Shakti Sharma) and 2nd floor is in possession of Krishan Chand (Respondent No. 2). She alleged that her family is NRI being citizens of United Kingdom. The Respondent No. 2/Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the month of September, 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/ - excluding water and electricity charges, which is now Rs. 3,000/ - per month excluding water and electricity charges. It is further alleged that her family comprises of her husband and two sons. One of her son is married and is also having children. She alleged that she usually and temporarily visits India and stays on the ground floor of the said premises and at that time her relatives and friends also visit to meet her. She further alleged that now in the evening of their lives, she and her husband have planned to settle in India in Chandigarh where there are only two bed rooms, drawing/dinning room on the ground floor, which are in her possession and are not sufficient to cater to their needs. Therefore, she claimed the possession of the IInd floor by way of the petition. Notice in the application was issued. In pursuance thereof, the tenant filed an application under Section 18 -A(5) of the Act in order to seek leave of the Court to contest the eviction petition, inter alia, on the ground that the need of the landlady is not bona fide as she has withdrawn her petition against Respondent No. 1, who is having more area and is paying less rent whereas the Petitioner is paying more rent and is in possession of the IInd floor having less area. The learned Rent Controller, while dismissing the application for leave to contest and allowing the eviction petition had observed that in the petition filed under Section 13 -B of the Act, landlord has to prove that he is Non Resident Indian, owner of the premises for more than five years on the date when the application for eviction is filed and requires the premises for his own use and occupation.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.