IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6900 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2011 Amarjit Singh -----Petitioner Vs. Sat Pal Singh -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is landlord’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.4.2011, whereby the respondent-tenant has been granted leave to defend the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”). Briefly stated, the petitioner had filed the instant ejectment petition claiming himself an NRI and owner of the suit property for more than 5 years prior to filing of the instant ejectment petition on the ground that after his retirement, he intends to settle in India and establish his business in the demised premises. C.R. No.6900 of 2011 Upon service, the respondent-tenant moved an application for grant of leave to defend on the ground that earlier also, the petitioner had filed an ejectment petition against him under Section 13-B of the Act on 15.11.2001 and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn. Not only this, the petitioner had also filed similar petitions against many other tenants and thereafter, these ejectment petitions were withdrawn and the petitioner executed sale deeds in favour of the said tenants with respect to the demised premises. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, projecting that need of the petitioner was not bona fide, the respondent-tenant sought grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition. The aforesaid facts, as noticed above, could not be disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, prima facie it is made out that the respondent-tenant had certainly raised a triable issue with regard to the bona fide need of the petitioner-landlord. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for with the impugned order. Dismissed. November 11, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 2