C.R. No.1821 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1821 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2009 State Bank of Patiala .......Petitioner Versus Smt. Kulwant Kaur Padda ....Respondent Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision is against the refusal of the leave to defend sought for by the tenant. The leave was sought on the basis of a prior communication between the landlord and the tenant where the landlord was seeking for an enhancement of rent and both the parties were contemplating for execution of a fresh lease for a period of five years. The proposals did not, however, come through with the inability of parties to come to consensus relating to the quantum of rent. Even the period of lease as contemplated between the parties providing initially for a period of five years and for further extension could not be finalized. C.R. No.1821 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 2. An inchoate transaction that did not conclude the negotiations between the parties for a fullfledged rent deed with all its recitals would still be relevant although not conclusive to establish the contention of the tenant that the landlord was prompted more by desire of increase in rent than a genuine need in the property. It would just as well be possible for the landlord to contend that in view of an abated attempt to obtain a fair compensation for occupation by a tenant, it was worthwhile for a landlord to think of returning to India and occupying his own premises. In either case, the matter will rest by giving the parties an opportunity to join issues on the question of bona fides and it cannot be merely a matter of presumption by the only fact that the landlord has applied under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 492 that the issue of bona fides is still a matter which the Court will examine and it cannot always be taken as a matter of inviolable presumption. Having regard to the fact that some materials have been placed by the tenant to show prima facie that there is a likelihood of defence, it would be appropriate only if leave is granted to the tenant to defend the action by the landlord seeking for ejectment. 3. It is a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the Rent Controller would have due consideration of the need for a quick disposal of such a case. It is, therefore, requested that the Rent Controller decides the case within a period of six months from the date of making of this order. The order C.R. No.1821 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of the Court below is set aside and the revision petitioner shall be granted the leave to defend as sought for by him. The civil revision is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2009 Pankaj*