PUNJAB & SIND BANK Vs. MAHN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 4.4.2013 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the application for leave to defend in a petition under Section 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the "Act") as amended filed on behalf of the petitioner -tenant, has been dismissed. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 -B of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner -Bank from the demised premises i.e. House No. 8, Sector 8 -A, Chandigarh alleging that he is an NRI within the definition of NRI provided under the Act as applicable to the Chandigarh. He is settled in Singapore and wants to return to India and needs the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It is his further case that the property in question was purchased by him more than 30 years back. The demised premises were rented out upto 30.9.2007 to the petitioner in September, 1992 by executing a rent deed between the parties. The said rent deed has expired and no fresh deed for demised premises has been executed between the parties. The respondent has come to India in February, 2010 after his retirement in January, 2010 to shift permanently. He had requested the officials of the petitioner -Bank to vacate the premises. However, they have refused to do so. It has been further stated that the petitioner is aged about 81 years. He is not engaged in any business/profession/work at present and he has not filed any similar proceedings under Section 13 -B of the Act with regard to any property whatsoever. Thus, he was entitled for immediate possession by way of ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises.

(2.) ON receipt of notice, the petitioner -Bank filed an application for leave to defend raising various objections. The said application was supported by an affidavit of Harpal Singh, Principal & Chief HRD, Punjab & Sind Bank, PSB Centre for Banking Research & Training, Bank Square, Sector 17 -B, Chandigarh.

(3.) THE respondent -landlord filed reply to the aforesaid application for leave to defend denying the grounds as raised.