The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the requirements under Section 13(B) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 in the context of a dispute between a non-resident Indian landlord and the tenants.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. This is a tenants revision petition directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, by which the leave to defend to contest the proceedings initiated by the respondent/landlord under Section 13(B) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment)Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been declined. The respondent/landlord pleaded that he is a person of Indian origin and a non-resident Indian having acquired Canadian citizenship and that he is the owner of House No. 56, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh (demised premises) which was on rent with the petitioner and her late husband. The husband of the petitioner having died, the tenancy rights have devolved upon all the three petitioners who are the legal heirs of deceased Abhay Sood. They have been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. It was further the case set up by the respondents that the demised premises were purchased by him vide sale deed dated 30.12.1971. That now he required the same for his bona fide use and occupation as he has decided to return to India and settle down here.

2. In response to this petition, the respondent filed an application for leave to defend and stated therein that the respondents had earlier filed civil suit for ejectment of the petitioner and Late Abhay Sood which was withdrawn by him. It was admitted that respondent is a Canadian citizen and it was denied that he ever wanted to return to India. It was further pleaded that there are no triable issues which entitled the petitioners to seek leave to contest the petition. It was further pleaded that respondent has failed to prove that he is a non-resident Indian and his case falls within the ambit of Section 13(B) of the Act. It was denied that respondent had let out the premises to the petitioners. The premises was taken on rent by late Abhay Sood in the month of January, 1983 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. Petitioner Anita Sood had been paying rent to Smt. Ajit Kaur, mother and general power attorney of the respondent. Later on late Abhay Sood started sending the rent by bifurcating the rent i.e. 1500/- and 1000/- per month. It was further pleaded that Anita Sood was having a separate tenancy than her husband and no rent petition has been filed against her. Abhay Sood was having a separate tenancy qua another portion of the house and after the death of Abhay Sood, the tenancy was inherited by Abhinav Sood and Ruchi Sood along with petitioner Anita Sood. It was thus sought to be projected that the tenancy being separate, a composite petition was not maintainable.

3. It was also pleaded that rent was being paid by cheques to Ajit Kaur and the respondent had never let out the premises at any point of time. It was lastly pleaded that the petition has been filed through a power of attorney which is not maintainable.

4-5 The respondent filed reply to the application for leave to contest and explained that the civil suit which he had filed against the petitioner had become infructuous in view of the notification dated 7.11.2002 having been quashed by the Honble Supreme Court which rendered that remedy redundant. The rest of the averments pertaining to the petitioner not being an N.R.I. and not intending to return to India were also denied and it was pleaded further that complete portion of House No. 56, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh (demised premises) was taken on rent by late Abhay Sood in January, 1984 at a monthly of Rent 2000/- and this amount has been paid vide cheque dated 1.2.1984 and subsequent payments were also made through various cheques deposited by Ajit Kaur who is the mother and General Power of Attorney holder of the respondent in her saving bank account. It was also pleaded that there is ample correspondence between late Abhay Sood and Ajit Kaur with regard to payment of rent. Thereafter the rent was enhanced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 2500/- per month and it is Abhay Sood who subsequently bifurca