IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4491 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st July, 2009. Jagdish Kumar Petitioner through Mr. S.S.Chandi, Advocate Versus Sudesh Kumar Respondent through None Ex-parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 13.8.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Nakodar whereby his application seeking leave to contest, moved under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, has been dismissed. The respondent – landlord has filed an eviction petition under Section 13-A of the Act seeking the petitioner's eviction from a commercial shop, inter-alia, on the ground that he has retired from Government service on 31.12.2006 and is a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of Section 13-A of the Act and he needs the demised premises for his own use and occupation. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner moved an application under Section 18-A of the Act seeking leave to contest. One of the plea taken by the petitioner is that the demised premises is a commercial shop whereas a 'specified landlord' under Section 13-A can seek eviction of his tenant only from a 'residential' or 'scheduled building'. The petitioner's objection, however, has been turned down by the Rent Controller, giving rise to this revision petition. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent was duly served but due to his non-appearance, he was proceeded against ex-parte on 26.3.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned order. There can indeed be no doubt that under Section 13-A of the Act, a specified landlord is entitled to recover immediate possession of a 'residential' or 'scheduled building' only. The provision does not entitle a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant summarily from a 'commercial' premises. A perusal of the eviction petition, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P1, shows that the respondent – landlord himself has averred that the demised premises is a shop. If that is so, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that his eviction can not be sought under Section 13-A of the Act, prima facie, makes out a triable issue which in turn, would warrant the grant of leave to contest. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 13.8.2008 is set aside and while allowing the petitioner's application for leave to contest, the Rent Controller, Nakodar is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. No costs. July 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE