CR No.587 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.587 of 2011 Date of Decision:08.03.2011 S. Paramjeet Singh Walia . . .Petitioner Versus Shri Subhash Chand Dhooper . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Ms.Manisha Dayal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.V. Mehta, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 3.12.2010 by which application for leave to defend filed by the tenant has been allowed. In brief, the petitioner/landlord filed an application under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) in order to seek eviction of the respondent/tenant from SCO No.373, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh (demised premises) on the ground of personal need. It is alleged by the petitioner that he and his wife had purchased the demised premises from Chandigarh Administration in auction on 18.11.1997 and let out its ground floor to respondent vide lease deed dated 15.3.2004 for a period of five years i.e. upto 31.3.2009. The petitioner is allegedly working with the United Nations Organization (for short ‘UNO’) and at the time of filing of the petition, he was posted in Kabul (Afghanistan). He claimed that he required the demised premises to settle his son Atamjit Singh, who has returned from Canada after completing his studies and for his wife Rajinder Kaur, who wanted to start a Boutique. The application filed by the petitioner was contested by the CR No.587 of 2011 - 2 - respondent by filing application under Section 18-A of the Act by which he had sought leave of the Court to defend the case. The said application of the respondent has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller only on the ground that the petitioner/landlord has not mentioned as to what are the qualifications of his son and how his wife has interest in business of Boutique, otherwise the Rent Controller had decided all the ingredients of Section 13-B in favour of the landlord observing that he is an NRI landlord/owner of the demised premises for more than 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason assigned in the impugned order while granting leave to defend is patently erroneous. He submits that in order to maintain an application under Section 13-B of the Act, the landlord has to plead and prove that he is NRI landlord/owner of the demised premises for more than five years and requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation or for use of any one ordinarily living with him or dependant upon him. The landlord is not required to disclose his expertise to the Rent Controller or for the satisfaction of the tenant about the business he intended to start nor he is required to prove as to what studies/qualifications he has acquired. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no bona fide necessity of the landlord to get the demised premises vacated from him as he has failed to produce any evidence about the nature of qualifications of his son and the interest of his wife in the business of Boutique. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is now well settled that the tenant is not supposed to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he is going to use his premises after eviction. Moreover, in the present case, the landlord/petitioner has specifically stated that the demised premises is required for the purpose of settling his son, who has returned from Canada and also for his wife, who is interested in running business of a Boutique. In these circumstances, to my mind there is an error in the approach of the learned Rent Controller in allowing the tenant to defend the eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act, who could only defend by pointing out falsity in the case of the landlord in respect of the material points like that he is not an NRI, not the CR No.587 of 2011 - 3 - owner or the persons for whom he is seeking eviction are neither living with him nor they are dependent upon him. But the ground on which the application under Section 18-A of the Act has been allowed is totally frivolous and is thus not accepted by this Court. Hence, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 08, 2011 JUDGE Vivek