CR No.2943 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2943 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:04.05.2011. Swaraj Chopra ...Petitioner Versus Mona Mehra ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The tenant is in revision against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 09.02.2011 by which an application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] for seeking leave to defend the application filed by the landlady under Section 13-B of the Act, has been declined. The learned Rent Controller had found the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties, the landlady to be a Non Resident Indian, owner of the demised premises by virtue of sale deed dated 20.03.1997 and the bona fide necessity of the landlady for the business of readymade garments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the lease deed dated 24.09.2003, the demised premises was let out for 10 years, therefore, eviction petition could not have been filed before the expiry of said period. He further argued that the landlady has already got the premises vacated on the first floor, therefore, the necessity is not bona fide. Lastly, he argued that the landlady has failed to prove that she is an NRI in terms of Section 2(dd) of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and perused the available record. CR No.2943 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** Insofar as the first submission is concerned, the lease deed is silent about the right of the tenant to remain in possession of the demised premises for 10 years despite the fact that it may be required by the landlady for her personal necessity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of The State of Himachal Pradesh (through the Secretary for Forests Ministry of Forests), Shimla V. Ram Piari and others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 648, but it would not help the tenant because it is categorically mentioned in para No.41 of the judgment that there was a stipulation in the lease deed that the lease is in perpetuity and the owner or his successors-in- interest would not have any right to get back the land during the pendency of the lease. Thus, the first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby rejected. In respect of the second argument about the availability of the demised premises which has been got vacated from Manav Chopra, it would be suffice to say that it has not been proved that it relates to the landlady, rather in that case Manav Chopra was the first party and Surjit Singh was the second party. The third and last argument is also inconsequential because the landlady has proved that she has been permanently residing in the United States of America. She was employed there and has been assessed to income tax as per the laws of the USA. She had filed her income tax returns for the years 2005 to 2007 regarding her earnings in USA. She was issued a Permanent Resident Card by the Department of Home Land of Security of United State of America. In view of the overwhelming evidence annexed by the landlady with the eviction petition to prove her status as NRI, I do not find any substance in the objection raised by the tenant in this regard. In view of the above, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. May 04, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge