Civil Revision No. 3147 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3147 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Jindal ...Petitioner Versus Raj Rani Thakur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), to obtain the ejectment of the respondent- tenant from the premises under the latter's tenancy, on an averment that the having retired from Government employment requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The respondent herein (and also therein) filed a plea to obtain the leave of the Court to defend the proceedings. That came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 9.11.2009. It is held by the learned Rent Controller that controversy involves triable issues. The petitioner-landlord is in revision against it. It was noticed in the impugned order itself that the Civil Revision No. 3147 of 2010 -2- **** petitioner is in occupation of entire first and second floor of the tenanted premises and further that his spouse has also been allotted Government accommodation. The petitioner herein raised a plea that accommodation available with the family is insufficient inasmuch as certain guests keep on visiting his family and he requires to get the premises for the purpose of reconstruction/renovation. While dealing with the respective stances of the parties, the learned Rent Controller observed as under:- “ After hearing the rival submissions and going through the record of the file, this Court come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to grant leave to defend to the respondent. Admittedly, petitioner is in occupation of first and second floor of the house in question and his wife has also been allotted a government accommodation. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that the government accommodation is not sufficient for his family and for the guests who used to visit him and his family. He wants the entire house for his use and occupation and for that of his family. After getting the house vacated, he want to reconstruct and renovate the entire house according to his needs. But the petitioner has not mentioned anything regarding the size of accommodation, number of rooms and type of accommodation allotted to his wife. He has also not mentioned the expected date of her retirement. So the Civil Revision No. 3147 of 2010 -3- **** sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation cannot be seen even prima facie. Secondly, first and second floors of the house in question are also in his possession, whether that is sufficient for the use and occupation of the petitioner or requires renovation/ reconstruction, is also a matter of evidence.” It is not the plea on behalf of the petitioner that there is any fact-based inaccuracy in the observations made by the learned Rent Controller. In the backdrop of the entire factual scenario noticed above, it is apparent that there are indeed triable issues in controversy and the learned Rent Controller did not commit any error in allowing the leave to defend plea filed by the respondent. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 12, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge