IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Leave to defend--Grant of--Court has to only see whether the defence is such that the landlords petition for eviction could be decided against him or that the defence is not a moonshine and it could be supported by appropriate evidence or legal propositions.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The tenant, who applied for grant of leave to defend in a petition under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was rejected in his plea and he is the aggrieved party before this Court in revision.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits four lines of defences as available to him to merit consideration for the grant of leave. His contention is that in the face of express denial of the status of the petitioner as a non-resident Indian, nothing was forthcoming from the landlords side except his assertion that he is a Non-resident Indian. He points out that the Rent Controller has not adverted to the issue at all and even in the absence of production of a passport declaring his status as such Non-resident Indian, the Rent Controller could not have rejected the leave to defend.

3. Another ground, which he would urge, is that the landlord shall also have to prove the ownership of the property for a period of five years prior to the institution of the petition. The petition, according to him, lacked the details of his entitlement to be treated as the "specified landlord" having ownership of the premises, as required under Section 13-B of the Act. Here again, the petitioner had merely referred to his right to the property with no details as to how he had obtained ownership in support of the property.

4. The plea of bona fides obtained a larger dimension in that the landlord had entered into compromise with the tenant only in November, 2007 where he had permitted the tenant to put the property to such use as he wished on a rent determined between the parties and the objection filed just five months after the filing of the petition betrays the lack of bona fides that the landlord required the property for his own benefit. The bona fides of the requirement was also attacked on the ground that the landlord was shown to be owner of five shops and some land situate to the same town, as evidenced by Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 and even that was not properly appreciated by the Rent Controller to accord to the tenant the leave to defend.

5. Even apart from the contentions relating to the pleadings, an objection taken on behalf of the tenant was that the property had been let only by the petitioners father and since the initial letting had not been done by the landlord himself, the landlord cannot stake his reliance on Section 13-B. To him, the answer was directly available with a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 631 : 2005(1) RCR(Rent) 218 : 2005(2) SCC 271. Yet another objection equally of a technical nature is that the petition had been filed through a power of attorney and such petition ought not to be entertained in view of the decision in Basant Kumar v. Romesh Kumar Deora, 2008(1) RCR(Rent) 296 : 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 176 (P&H).

6. To each one of the above contentions urged, the landlord has sought to give explanations but the question is whether such explanation is such as to make it so formidable that it can throw out the defence at the threshold even without affording an opportunity to join all the points of contention by affording right to the parties to go to trial.

7. As regards the claim of the landlord that he was a Nonresident Indian, learned counsel for the respondent had shown his address to be in Delhi and there were definite averments to the effect that he was a Non-resident Indian. He would point out to the statement in defence, which contains no more reference to the fact that tenant did not admit the petitioner to be a landlord/Non-resident Indian. This bare denial, according to him, was not sufficient.

8. The plea regarding the want of proof of the ownership of the building was, according to the landlord, a matter of non-issue since the landlord had averred with sufficient clarity that he was the owner of the property, which was in the possession of the tenant since the year 1996 and th