Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 23.9.2011 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner in a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”) has been rejected and consequently, his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises.

2. The respondent - Sukhdev Singh filed petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the demises property, submitting that he was a Non Resident Indian (NRI) and owner/landlord of the tenanted premises which was purchased by him in open auction vide deed of conveyance dated 3.4.1967. The petitioner was tenant in a portion of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs.400/- exclusive of house tax @ 15%. Hence, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further averred that the respondent/landlord has returned to India and at present residing at 507, Raikot Road, Mandi Mullanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Earlier he was residing in Canada and had returned to India in the year 2009. Respondent is having Canadian passport. He requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for his personal use and occupation as well as of his family. The premises in dispute was most suitable accommodation required by him and his family members in order to set up his residence and thus, the petitioner was liable to be evicted.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and filed application for leave to contest stating that he was lodged in Central Jail, Tajpur Road in FIR No.195 dated 2.11.2009 P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and the demised premises was lying locked. There was no one to contest the ejectment petition in his absence. After getting information regarding the eviction petition, his wife informed him about the same and then his power of attorney was got attested from the jail authorities. Upon inspection of the file, it was revealed that ejectment application was filed under Section 13-B of the Act. Thus, the application for leave to defend was filed within the stipulated period after getting knowledge of the pendency of the present ejectment petition. It was stated that Section 13-B of the Act was not applicable. However, the petitioner sought permission to contest the petition on the ground summons were not sent him as per the prescribed provisions of Section 18-A(2) of the Act and that title of the respondent was also disputed. It was further submitted that the respondent is a permanent resident of Canada and was residing there with his family members and had no intention to return to India. It was also submitted that the respondent was already occupying property No.507, Raikot Road, Mandi Mullanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. He was also having another commercial property at Village Mullanpur, Ludhiana and immovable property at Muzafar Nagar, U.P. Thus, requirement of respondent was not bona fide. The respondent had asked the petitioner to purchase the demised property for Rs.50 lacs or to vacate the same by taking Rs.10 lacs. He had received rent @ Rs.400/- per month from him upto 31.7.2009 but thereafter, refused the accept the same. It was reiterated that the respondent does not require the property in dispute bonafidely and was not covered under the definition of ‘NRI’ as envisaged under Section 2(dd) of the Act. It was further submitted that there were various triable issues in the present petition and thus, permission be granted to contest the same. Respondent filed reply to the aforesaid application for leave to contest denying the averments.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller held that since the petitioner had appeared on the date fixed and had filed application under Section 18-A of the Act along with his affidavit, it does not affect whether summons could not be sent in the prescribed proforma and heard applicant on the issue of leave to contest on meri