Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - This judgment shall dispose of two civil revision petitions i.e. CR Nos.2337 and 6131 of 2011 which have arisen out of the same ejectment petition between the same parties.

2. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises i.e Booth No.49, Phase-3B-2, Mohali, claiming herself to be Non Resident Indian and owner/landlord of the demised premises for the last 5 years prior to the date of filing of the ejectment petition. It was also averred by the respondent that she is aged approximately 68 years and her husband is of approximately 74 years and they wish to come back to India to settle permanently as they want to spend rest of their life in their motherland and require the demised premises for their personal use. It was also averred that she does not have any other source of income and wants to start business in the said premises.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and moved application under Section 18-A of the Act seeking leave to defend, on the ground that respondent is not an NRI and does not intend to live in India as she is permanently settled in England along with her family. She is not the complete owner of the property in dispute. She has not produced any deed of ownership of booth No.49, Phase 3-B2, Mohali. No conveyance deed has been issued in her favour by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab, and in the absence of any registered conveyance deed, the respondent does not fall in the definition of owner and thus, the triable issues are raised and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of leave to defend.

4. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2011, the Rent Controller, Mohali rejected the said application of the petitioner for grant of leave to defend. While dismissing the aforesaid application, the Rent Controller, Mohali observed as under:

“After hearing rival contentions of both the ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the file, this court is of the view that the main petition has been filed by the respondent/petitioner under section 13-B of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, respondent/petitioner being an NRI and owner of the property for bona-fide requirement of the respondent/petitioner. This court of the opinion that present application has got no merits and same is hereby dismissed as the application for leave to defend is only allowed if there exists any triable issue between the parties, but in the present petition, the respondent/petitioner has placed on record the copy of the passport which clearly proves that the respondent/petitioner is an NRI. Moreover, the status of respondent/petitioner being an NRI is not disputed by the applicant. The relationship of landlord and tenant is also not disputed by the applicant, hence, the relationship of landlord and tenant is also proved by the respondent/petitioner. The respondent/petitioner has produced on record the sale deed dated 13.08.1982 in favour of the respondent/petitioner, which clearly shows that the respondent/petitioner is the owner of the demised premises for more than five years. The respondent/petitioner has also produced on record the copy of letter issued by the concerned authorities vide which the Booth No.56 has been changed to Booth No.49. Therefore, it clearly proves that the respondent/petitioner is the owner of the Booth No.49. In the present petition, the respondent/petitioner was required to prove three ingredients i.e.

(1) She is an NRI,

(2) Owner of the demised premises and

(3) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

As discussed earlier the respondent/petitioner has been able to prove all three basic ingredients of the section 13-B of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as the respondent/petitioner has placed on record the relevant documents to prove the same. As far as contention of the applicant tha