IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7268 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011 Surjit Singh -----Petitioner Vs. Devinder 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. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 17.9.2010 of the Rent Controller, Moga, whereby his application for leave to defend the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”) has been rejected. As per the averments, respondent-landlord is an NRI and owner of the property in dispute for the last more than 5 years prior to filing of the ejectment petition. Since he wants to come back to India, he has set up his bona fide need to get the property in dispute vacated from the petitioner. C.R. No.7268 of 2010 Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant moved an application under Section 18-A of the Act for granting him leave to defend the said ejectment petition. A perusal of the aforesaid application would show that in fact the petitioner has not disputed the ownership of the property in dispute and the NRI status of the respondent-landlord. In his leave to defend, he has only disputed the bona fide need of the respondent-landlord by raising an averment that the fact that the respondent-landlord required the property in dispute for starting a gas agency was not bona fide and that he has concealed a material fact that the adjoining shop was lying vacant. However, the respondent-landlord has disputed that aforesaid factum in his reply to the application for leave to defend. Even the Rent Controller has noticed the aforesaid objection and has rebutted the argument of tenant by observing that except a bald assertion, the petitioner has failed to place on record any material to prove this assertion. It may also be noticed that it was not necessary for the respondent-landlord to state about the nature of business he wanted to do in the shop in dispute and thus, the argument raised in this regard has no significance. No other point has been raised. Dismissed. November 16, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 2