Civil Revision No. 5880 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5880 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.10.2008 Jaswinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Prabh Dyal ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner-tenant has impugned the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, whereby his application that he be granted leave to defend has been declined. In the present case, landlord had filed an application under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) praying that order of eviction against the tenant be passed. Necessary ingredients that the landlord is a Non-Resident Indian and he requires the shop in dispute for his own use was also pleaded. In an application filed by the petitioner-tenant for leave to defend, it was stated that the landlord had only produced photocopy of the passport and, therefore, he cannot be termed as Non Resident Civil Revision No. 5880 of 2008 2 Indian. It was also stated that there is a serious dispute that the landlord owns property for more than five years. It was further stated that since the landlord was 70 years of age, plea that he requires the premises for his own business is a false plea. Learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, concluded as under:- “4. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. Applicant has produced on file photocopy of his British Passport which shows that place of birth of applicant was Hoshiarpur. He is thus a Non-Resident Indian. Merely because applicant is more than 70 years of age, is no ground to presume that he cannot start his business in India. Applicant is within legal rights to get one building vacated as per provisions of Section 13B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. No such document has come on file that applicant has entered into an agreement to sell with any person. The law even protects the respondent and he can seek restitution of demised premises in case applicant fails to occupy the same after getting it vacated. There is no legal and valid ground for granting leave to respondent to contest the present ejectment application. The application for grant of leave to defend the present ejectment application is dismissed”. I find no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by learned Rent Civil Revision No. 5880 of 2008 3 Controller. I have also perused Annexure P3 which is an application for grant of permission to contest the petition, except making wild assertions without any document in support, tenant has not substantiated the same. No reason or basis was laid by the tenant on the basis of which leave to defend could be granted. I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 30, 2008 “DK”