IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 5151 of 2008. Date of Decision:-25.9.2008. Gian Chand ... Petitioner Versus Amrit Pal Kaur ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Monica Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH. J. The petitioner has been declined the leave to defend the petition filed for his eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the 'Act') by order dated July 25, 2008 of Rent Controller, Ludhiana. As a result thereof, Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop. By filing the present revision petition, the said order has been challenged. 2. Amrit Pal Kaur-landlady-respondent filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop bearing No. 8, Baba Deep Singh Market, Vikas Nagar, Pakhowal road, Ludhiana on the grounds (i) that she purchased the demised shop on May 27, 1994; (ii) that she is Non- resident Indian; (iii) that she has returned to India; (iv) that she required the demised shop for her own use and occupation. 3. Leave to defend the petition was filed on the grounds, inter-alia, (i) that landlady is not NRI; (ii) that the demised shop is not required for her own use and occupation; (iii) that she is not owner of the shop for the last 5 years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment before the Controller. Civil Revision No. 5151 of 2008. (2) 4. Only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant before this Court is that landlady had sold shop No. 10 on January 2, 1995, a fact which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent so, she wants to eject the petitioner from the shop only for the purpose of selling the shop and not for her personal use and occupation. 5. Relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as that of landlady and tenant is now not denied. Respondent has placed on record her passport whereby she is an NRI so, word of mouth that respondent is not an NRI shall not suffice. It has been pleaded by the landlady in paragraph No.8 of the petition that she had one son who unfortunately died. His widow Inderjit Kaur is residing with her and she along with her daughter-in- law wanted to open a shop of readymade garments etc. in the demised shop. She has no other business nor any shop in the urban area of Ludhiana. It sufficiently proves that the demised premises is required by her for her own use and occupation. 6. Coming to the next ground on which leave to defend has been sought that respondent was not the owner of the demised shop for the last 5 years before the institution of the proceedings, it has been pleaded by the landlady that shop was purchased by her on May 27, 1994. To rebut it, no evidence worth the name has been placed on record by the tenant nor it was so argued by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. 7. So far as the contention that after getting the shop vacated, petitioner would sell the same can not hold the field because Sub-section (3) of Section 13-B of the Act provides that where an owner recovers possession of a building under this Section, he or she shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or let it out before the expiry of a period of 5 years from the date of taking possession of the said building, failing which, the evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored the possession of the said building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly. Not only that, Section 19 Civil Revision No. 5151 of 2008. (3) of the Act provides that contravention of the provisions of Sub- section (3) of Section 13-B shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or fine which may be extended to one thousand rupees or both. In case the landlady violates the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13-B, she shall face the consequences but she can not be denied the relief on presumptions. 8. In view of above, landlady-respondent has proved all the ingredients, that is, (i) she is a Non-resident Indian; (ii) that she has returned to India; (iii) that she is owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment before the Controller and (iv) that the requirement of demised shop by her is genuine to get the ejectment under Section 13-B of the Act. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Rent Controller refusing to grant leave to contest the application under section 18-A of the Act. Resultantly, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.9.2008. SN