The Controller's jurisdiction to grant leave to contest an eviction application under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant. If the affidavit discloses such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave.

D.V.Sehgal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby he declined leave to the tenant-petitioner to contest the eviction application filed by the landlord respondent under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , as amended by Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985 (for short `the Act), and further allowing the said eviction application directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent.

2. The respondent claiming himself to be a specified-landlord within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act filed the eviction application on 3.1.1987. He stated therein that he is holding the post of Superintendent in the office of the District Education Officer and was thus holding an appointment in a public service in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab. The petitioner is a tenant under him on the first floor of the house in dispute in the portion shown in pink colour in the plan attached with the application. The respondent further stated that the accommodation in his possession in the said house on the ground floor shown in green colour in the said plan is insufficient for his use and for the use of his family members. He has two married sons and a daughter who are living in Canada and England and visit India from time to time and as such on their arrival at Jalandhar the respondent finds it difficult to provide accommodation to his sons, their wives and children. Even his other relations who live in India and abroad including his daughter and her husband visit him from time to time. All these relations are financially quite well to do. He has no accommodation to provide to them on their visits. The house in dispute owned by the respondent bears No. 155 and is situate in Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar. He further averred that he is due to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1987. The application was accompanied by an affidavit as also a certificate from his employer.

3. The learned Rent Controller issued summons of this application to the petitioner who on receipt of the same filed an application accompanied by an affidavit stating the grounds on which he sought leave to contest the application for eviction. He stated therein, inter-alia, that the sons of the respondent are settled abroad permanently and are citizens of foreign countries and so are their wives and children. They have never visited the respondent ever since the first floor of the house in dispute was rented out him. It was, thus, pleaded that since the sons/daughter of the respondent are not living with him nor were they dependent on him, he could not seek eviction on account of necessity of the premises for their accommodation. He denied that the sons of the respondent visit him from time to time. The averment in the application that the accommodation on the ground floor shown in green colour already in possession of the respondent is insufficient was also disputed. The petitioner averred that there are six living rooms besides drawing-cum-dining room, a kitchen, a store, and toilets to accommodate the respondent and his family members. It was also stated that at present the respodnent, his wife and a small child of 2-1/2 years live in this spacious accommodation. A plan showing the extent of accommodation in possession of the respondent was also enclosed with the affidavit to counter the plan submitted with the eviction application.

4. The respondent filed a reply to the application for leave to contest the eviction application moved by the respondent wherein he controverted the pleas raised by the petitioner.

5. On the basis of the averments contained in the eviction application filed by the respondent, the application for leave to contest the same filed by the petitioner and a reply thereto submitted by the respondent, the learned Rent Controller through the jud