Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.11.2008 Tarlok Singh …Petitioner Versus Rana Manoranjan Singh Aujla ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Pruthi, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, landlord Rana Manoranjan Singh Aujla had filed an eviction petition against the tenant Tarlok Singh on the ground that under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) being Non Resident Indian and owner of the property, he is entitled for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Tenant appeared and filed reply seeking leave to defend. A vital question was raised that the property has not been let out by the landlord. A reference has been made by Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, to Section 13-B of the Act and he has emphasized that the words “let out by him or her” Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007 2 in Section 13-B of the Act assume importance and it has to be proved by the landlord that the building was let out by him. He has further stated that family members of Rana Manoranjan Singh Aujla had sold the property situated at Kapurthala and this conduct in itself is sufficient to infer that the premises are not required for personal necessity. Mr. Ahuja stated that all these averments may require evidence to be led and, therefore, summarily mechanism under Section 13B of the Act have not been invoked rightly. I have heard Mr. Ashok Pruthi, Advocate, appearing for the respondent. Mr. Pruthi has stated that since the petitioner is a Non Resident Indian and he has proved his passport, his need is bonafide. These arguments are not available to the tenant. He has further stated that the allegation that the respondent to the present petition and his family members have sold the property is wrong. Be as it may, in order to ensure fair play and balance the equities, these are questions of fact involved which are only to be decided by leading evidence, therefore, leave to defend is granted to the petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Pruthi has stated that provisions of Section 13B of the Act have been enacted and are beneficial in favour of landlord, therefore, this Court should specify the time for conclusion of the proceedings. I find merit in this submission. Accordingly, learned Rent Controller is directed to conclude the entire proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by granting Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2007 3 three opportunities each to the landlord and the tenant. They shall conclude their entire evidence in three opportunities afforded and thereafter the case will be decided. Any observation made herein will not affect the final outcome of the case. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 21, 2008 “DK”