DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. NACHHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the order dated 22.8.2012 (Anneuxre P -3) ordering his eviction in proceedings initiated by the respondent/landlord under the provisions of Section 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The fact that the petitioner is an NRI and is the owner of the premises for the last 5 years, is not in dispute and the only grievance of the petitioner is that leave to defend ought to have been granted to him because the respondent/landlord was required to prove his bonafide need and the petitioner had in his application demonstrated that the respondent is in possession of another premises in the vicinity where he is residing on the first floor and this should have been sufficient for the learned Rent Controller to arrive at a conclusion that the issue raised by the petitioner was a triable one.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of Section 13 -B of the Act are para -materia to those of Section 14 -D of the Delhi Rent Act and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, 2005 2 SCC 271while interpreting the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act had observed as follows : -

(3.) FOR the purpose of reference, the provisions of Section 14 -D are also extracted here below : -