IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6650 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 4th August, 2010 Sushil Kumar … Petitioner Versus Komal Sidhu (Ms.) … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No. 19384-CII of 2010 CM is allowed and exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures is granted. Civil Misc. No. 19385-CII of 2010 CM is allowed and letters (Annexure R-5 and R-6) are taken on record. Civil Revision No.6650 of 2008 Respondent-landlady filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the shop described in the eviction petition. Respondent-landlady pleaded all the Civil Revision No.6650 of 2008 (O&M) necessary ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act. The petitioner-tenant appeared and sought leave to contest the eviction petition. The Rent Controller, Dhuri, vide impugned order dated September 22, 2008 (Annexure P-1), declined leave to contest the eviction petition to the tenant. In the eviction petition, it was pleaded that the shop was rented out to the tenant about 15 years ago at a rent of Rs.1800/- per month. It was stated that the landlady required the demised shop for her personal use and occupation, as she had failed to properly settle in Canada due to failure in family settlement with her husband. Therefore on return, she intended to start a dental material and equipment business in the demised shop. In the leave to contest, the tenant stated that the landlady was in the employment of Government of Punjab as a teacher and therefore, she could not start her own business. Furthermore, it was pleaded that she had gone on a long leave to Canada. It was further pleaded that an employee of the Government of Punjab, as per the Punjab Civil Service Rules, is barred from doing a private business. The Rent Controller determined the landlady to be a Non- Resident Indian. However, the Rent Controller further held that before starting the business, landlady can quit the job and therefore, declined the leave to contest. Upon notice, Mr.Jasbir Rattan, Advocate has caused appearance for the respondent-landlady. He has filed a Civil Misc. application, along with which two documents have been annexed and vide a separate order those documents have been taken on record. The communication (Annexure R-5) has been issued by the Canadian authorities to the respondent-landlady, wherein they have stated that it will take approximately 12-15 months to complete the formalities 2 Civil Revision No.6650 of 2008 (O&M) regarding grant of Canadian citizenship to the respondent-landlady. Letter (Annexure P-6) contains the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab to incorporate that an employee should leave the job to explore the opportunity of self-employment. Be that as it may, the matter of fact remains that till today the respondent-landlady is an employee of Government of Punjab and has not left her job. Therefore, a reasonable ground has been made by the tenant to contest the eviction petition. Hence, the leave to contest the eviction petition is granted to the petitioner-tenant and the order of ejectment is hereby set aside. The Rent Controller, Dhuri shall proceed with the eviction petition after affording three effective opportunities to both the parties to adduce their evidence. The eviction petition shall be decided within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 4, 2010 rps 3