Civil Revision No. 5973 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5973 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.11.2008 M/s Lakshmi Transport Company, Jalandhar and Another …Petitioners Versus Jasbir Singh Bharaj ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a tenant in the shop let out by Jasbir Singh Bharaj, a Non Resident Indian. The application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to defend has been declined by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The present revision petition has been filed against the order declining leave to defend. Two fold submissions have been raised before me. Firstly that in the ejectment petition (Annexure P3), petitioner has stated that he is a Non-Resident India but infact he is a British citizen and is whole family is established there and, therefore, the shop is not required by him for his personal necessity. Secondly, it has been stated that in the eviction petition (Annexure P3) the landlord has stated that he has also filed an ejectment petition against the said tenant. Civil Revision No. 5973 of 2008 2 Lastly, it has been stated that in the eviction petition (Annexure P3) the landlord has stated that he has also filed an ejectment petition against the other tenant. These three submissions were made before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller held that in view of law laid down in 'Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Munish Saini' 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 470, persons of Indian origin, who have settled abroad and are having parents, grant parents and great grand parents, who were born in India, and permanently resided in India, would be NRI for the purpose of the Act. The first contention has been rightly rejected by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller also repelled the contention of the petitioner that the property in dispute is not required for personal necessity and the landlord is making efforts to sell the property being without any basis. It was held to be a bald assertion made without any material to substantiate the same. Last submission of the Counsel was also not accepted by the Rent Controller as it surfaced that building is a composite, compact building and other shop also form part of the same building. The arguments advanced before me have been raised before the Rent Controller, considered and rejected for valid reasons. I find no infirmity in the orders of the Rent Controller. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 3, 2008 Civil Revision No. 5973 of 2008 3 “DK”