CR No.381 of 2008 [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.381 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7 - 11 - 2008 Kabal Singh ....Petitioner v. Central Bank of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') seeking eviction of the respondents on the ground of personal necessity. Petitioner who claims himself to be a Non Resident Indian has invoked the beneficiary provisions of Section Section 13-B of the Act. The necessary ingredients that property has been purchased five years ago and he is not possessing any other property were pleaded. Respondents filed an application that they have not been validly served with special summons as per Schedule II of sub-section 2 of Section 18-A of the Act. The Rent Controller held that there was no legal and valid CR No.381 of 2008 [2] service upon the respondents with the special summons prescribed under Schedule II of sub-section 2 of Section 18-A of the Act. For holding this view, reliance was placed by the Rent Controller on Paramjit Kaur v. Gurcharan Singh, 2007(2) RCR 589 wherein it was held that the summons must contain that petition has been filed under Section 13-B of the Act and application for leave to defend has to be filed within 15 days. Having held so, the Rent Controller examined the pleadings in the application for leave to defend. It noticed that it has been disputed therein that the landlord- petitioner is a Non Resident Indian and he had not specified as to what business he intends to start. The learned Rent Controller had rightly exercised jurisdiction to grant leave to defend to the respondents. Counsel for the parties have not disputed that at present trial is proceeding and petitioner-landlord is leading his evidence. Counsel for the parties state that in case Rent Controller is directed to conclude the proceedings within a specified time, except academic interest, nothing will be left in the present revision petition. I find merit in the joint prayer made by counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the Rent Controller is directed to decide the eviction petition within six months from today. In view of direction given above, impugned order is upheld. Revision petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 7, 2008. JUDGE RC