Triable issues should not be disposed of summarily, and claims such as oral partition and Non Resident Indian status require cogent evidence to support them.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition by the landlord-petitioner has been filed under Section 18-A(8) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, Act) challenging order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Phillaur granting leave to contest to the tenant-petitioner. The principal ground for granting leave to contest is that the landlord-respondent has set up the plea of oral partition in March 1992 which is falsified by the fact that in March, 2000, the landlord-respondent along with his other brothers have jointly filed an application which would show that they were the joint owners. The other ground taken for grant of leave is that the landlord-respondent has not been able to prove that he is a Non Resident Indian although he is holding a British Passport and his place of birth has been mentioned as Adda Goraya.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the present petition are that the landlord-petitioner has filed the Rent Petition No. 4 of 2003 on 15.2.2003 before the Rent Controller, Phillaur under Section 13-B of the Act claiming to be a non resident person of Indian Origin and asserting that he requires the demised premises. After notice was issued, the tenant-respondent, filed an application seeking leave to contest which has been allowed by the Rent Controller as some intricate question of law and facts have been raised. The operative part of the order of the Rent Controller reads as under:-

"The respondent being the tenant has raised intricate question of law and facts. As per the provisions of law, it is for the applicant to prove that he is the owner of the property for the last 5 years. The applicant has alleged that he became the owner of the property, on the basis or (sic of) oral partition, which took place in March, 1992. The said plea of the applicant stands falsified from the rent application filed jointly by the brothers in March, 2000, wherein they have alleged themselves to be the joint owner of the property. The respondent has reproduced the site plan of that case. It connects the shop in question now. The earlier suit was file (sic? filed) by the applicant with his brothers, of the property shown in green colour. It is the adjoining shop. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the application is the clusive owner of the shop in dispute, from the last five years. The applicant is required to prove that he is a Non Resident Indian, though the place of birth of the applicant has been mentioned as Adda Goraya. The applicant is holding British Passport. There is no cogent evidence on the file that the applicant has returned to India. Simply coming to India and filed the rent petition is no sufficient to prove that he is returned to India. Moreover, the main petition does not show, as to on which particular date, it has been verified at Phillaur. All these facts and circumstances can only be adjudicated at the time of final adjudication. The respondent in these circumstances has to be given an opportunity to contest the allegations of the application. The respondent cannot be condemned unheard."

3. Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner has argued that the very object of Section 13-B of the Act would be defeated if the leave to contest is allowed by taking into consideration the allegations with regard to fraudulent family partition. According to the learned counsel, the tenant-respondent has no locus standi to challenge the family partition entered into by the landlord-petitioner. He has further argued that the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act are required to the construed in favour of the landlord-petitioner as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J. Chatterjee v. Mohinder Kaur, 1 2000(7) S.C.C. 510.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller because ther