CR No.1310 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1310 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:24.02.2011. State Bank of India and another ...Petitioners Versus Ranjeet Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 18.12.2010 by which application filed under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] seeking leave to defend, has been dismissed. In brief, the landlords filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act in respect of building bearing No.17-A, Model Town, Phagwara which was let out on 15.02.1977 to the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. Although it was not set up as a defence in the leave to contest that the need of the landlords is of additional accommodation yet this argument is raised before this Court on the ground that the landlords have already in their possession 5 rooms around the demised premises which are sufficient to cater to their needs and the requirement of the demised premises is only a greed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the available record from which I have found that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants is having no force because while filing application under Seciton 13-B of the Act, the landlord has to show that he is a CR No.1310 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** Non Resident Indian, owner of the demised premises from the last more than 5 years, the demised premises is required for his use and occupation and the said right is being availed of by him for the first and last time. The landlords have claimed that they require the entire demised premises for use and occupation of their family which does not mean that they require it as an additional accommodation for which leave to contest could be granted to the petitioners. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. February 24, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE