KULDISH KAUR Vs. HARISH KUMAR RANDEV AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitionertenant, is to the order dated 15.02.2013, whereby the Rent Controller, Kapurthala has dismissed the application, filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act') for leave to defend and allowed the application for ejectment filed under Section 13- B of the Act.

(2.) The Rent Controller, vide the impugned order, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was the owner of the property on the basis of a decree passed on 09.02.1995, in his favour. The present petitioner admitted that she was residing in the premises since Surinder Kaur, her mother, was a tenant under Kamlawati who was the grandmother of respondent No.3. The said respondent had a British passport and thus, was a Non Resident Indian and there was no ground to grant leave to defend merely because the said respondents had another premises belonging to her parents. Accordingly, being the owner of the property for the last 5 years, he was competent to file ejectment petition and merely because he has not come back to India would not be a ground to reject the application filed under Section 13-B of the Act.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ownership of the respondent was a question mark and therefore, the leave to contest should have been granted as a triable issue has been raised and secondly the boundaries were not matching as per the decree and the Rent Controller was in error in granting the relief. It was also contended that the issue regarding foreign passport holder is pending consideration before the Apex Court.