Civil Revision No. 279 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 279 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.4.2010 Hassan Jafar ...Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Harmandeep Singh Sain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Rattan, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-tenant has a grievance about the validity of the impugned order dated 24.12.2009, vide which a plea filed by him for the leave to defend in terms of Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came to be negatived by the learned Trial Court which observed that the plea was barred by time. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the bar of limitation ought not to have been invoked in view of the fact that the petitioner himself could not have been validly filed a petition in terms of Section 13-B of the Act. In that context, it is argued that petition had been presented through an attorney who could not be said to be competent to make a deposition about the personal bonafide necessity of the NRI to occupy the premises aforementioned. Reliance, in support of the Civil Revision No. 279 of 2010 -2- **** aforementioned plea, is placed upon Basant Kumar Vs. Ramesh Kumar Deora 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 176. The learned counsel does not otherwise dispute that if the plea with regard to the very competence of the petition is not upheld, he would not be able to escape the charge that the plea had been filed beyond the period of limitation. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Basant Kumar's case (supra) is misconceived. All that was held in that case was that evidence of the attorney to the effect that the NRI/landlord wished to return to India and start business could not be relied upon. It was not held therein that the petition would not be competent if the NRI does not file it in person or is not proved to be available in India on the date of presentation of the petition. In the context of finding on point of limitation, the following observations were made by the learned Rent Controller:- “The present application to leave to defend was filed on 18.3.2009 but the service was got effected on 25.11.2008, so the present application was filed beyond period of limitation, which is mandatory under the Act. Furthermore, no application regarding condonation of delay is filed on record.” The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to persuade this Court to find any fault with the validity of the observations aforementioned. The learned Rent Controller correctly noticed that the presentation made is on Civil Revision No. 279 of 2010 -3- **** behalf of an NRI who is owner of the tenanted premises. These facts do not appear to have been contested before the learned Rent Controller on behalf of the petitioner herein. The relevant para indicating these fact is extracted hereunder for facility of reference:- “The basic requirement as mentioned in Section 13-B of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is that the petitioners must be an NRI and they must be the owners of the demised premises. In the present petition the petitioners are being able to prove that they are an NRI and is the owner of the demised premises which is not disputed by the applicant/respondent.” It is, then, argued by the petitioner herein that the great prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order which directs ejectment of the petitioner herein from the tenanted premises. The plea is misconceived on the face of it. No ejectment order has, infact, come to be granted by the learned Rent Controller. All that learned Rent Controller has done is to disallow a plea filed by the petitioner-tenant under section 18-A of the Act to obtain the leave of the Court to defend the case. Even thereafter, it will be open to the NRI-landlord to enter the witness box and depose to the various statutory requirements indicated in the course of the petition itself. The mere fact of disallowance of a plea under Section 18-A of the Act does not, ipso facto, amount to the ouster of the tenant from the tenanted premises. If leave to defend is allowed, the trial would Civil Revision No. 279 of 2010 -4- **** proceed further. If, however, the leave to defend is disallowed, even then the Court would, obviously afford an opportunity to the respondent-landlord to adduce whatever evidence he desires in support of the plea. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. April 21, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge