In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. *** CR No.4647 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on February 17,2011. Amrit Lal --Petitioner vs. Balbir Kaur and others --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, dated 11.5.2010, by which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 18-A in response to the petition filed under Section13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') has been declined. The application of the petitioner has been declined, inter- alia, on the ground that the landlady fulfills all the conditions enshrined in Section 13-B of the Act and she is the owner of the property in dispute for the last more than five years. The applicants/tenants have admitted that they are permanently settled in Bahrain and as such they fall within the definition of 'Non Resident Indian'. The learned Courts below have also observed that notice CR No.4647 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of the application was served upon the petitioner for 3.7.2009, pursuant to which they appeared on 16.7.2009, but application for seeking leave to defend was filed on 03.8.2009 i.e. after a lapse of 15 days from the date of appearance. Thus, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by time by taking into consideration various decisions of this Court rendered in Om Parkash Vs.Ashwani Kumar Bassi 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 214; Vijay Kunar Vs. Surinder Tamna 2007 (1) R.C.R.(Rent) 648 and Rajpal Vs. Gurdev Singh 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 161. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old lady, who has no other accommodation to run her business. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Rent Controller has erred in dismissing the application on the ground of delay. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the landlady fulfills all the conditions which are required to maintain the petition under Section 13-B of the Act and in view thereof, until and unless, the tenant, by leading some prima facie evidence does not prove the falsity in that claim, no leave to defend can be granted. In view of the above, this revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. February 17,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge