Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: (Oral) - This is tenants’ revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 7.12.2010 whereby their application for leave to defend, a petition filed under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act has been declined.

2. The brief facts of this revision petition are that the respondent landlord claiming himself to be an NRI and owner of the demised premises for more than 5 years prior to the date of initiation of ejectment proceedings had filed the instant ejectment application against the petitioners under Section 13-B of the Rent Act alleging that he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. He intends to come to India for starting his own new venture of import and export.

3. It was also mentioned in the said ejectment application that originally Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain was owner of the premises in dispute. The petitioners took the premises in dispute on rent from him at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month vide rent note dated 23.1.1984. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain had died on 11.10.2001. After his death, the respondent, who is son of aforesaid Rajinder Kumar Jain, has become the owner of the premises in dispute and the petitioners have become the tenants under him qua the premises in dispute on the terms and conditions of the rent note dated 23.1.1984 and there exists relationship of owner/tenant/landlord between the parties.

4. Upon notice, the petitioners appeared and filed an application under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 praying for leave to defend the aforesaid ejectment application submitting that the instant application was only an attempt in the disguise of bona fide need to get the premises vacated. The landlord has not even pleaded that he has returned to India even on temporary basis. The said petition has been filed through the general power of attorney Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, who cannot depose or verify the facts of personal need of the respondent and therefore, the said petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the respondent had not placed on record any document to certify his claim to become owner/landlord of the demised premises after the death of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain as there were other LRs of Rajinder Kumar Jain also and thus, the instant revision petition was without any merit and was liable to be dismissed.

5. While rejecting the prayer for leave to defend, the Rent Controller concluded that the petitioners have not been able to make out any prima facie case for grating leave to contest as in the case in hand, there was no dispute regarding the fact of respondent being Non Resident Indian and co-owner/landlord of the demised premises for more than 5 years and in view of the aforesaid facts, there was a presumption in favour of the respondent-landlord regarding his bona fide need and there was no evidence brought on record by the petitioners to rebut the same and therefore, their prayer was liable to be rejected. It was also found by the Rent Controller that Vijay Kumar Gupta was duly authorized to file the present petition and thus, the petition filed on behalf of the NRI landlord through the said power of attorney was maintainable.

6. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 4.1.2011. On 21.2.2011, the following order was passed by this Court:

“Learned counsel for the parties are, inter alia, adidem that the matter should await the decision of CR No.4025 of 2006 (Smt. Bachan Kaur & Ors. v. Kabal Singh & another), decided on 29.9.2010, in which two questions have been referred to a larger Bench of this Court.

Adjourned sine die.

In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioners has assured the Court that he would make the payment of entire arrears of rent. Interim order to continue.”

7. It is not in dispute that CR No.4025 of 2006 titled as “Smt. Bachan Kaur & Ors. v. Kabal Singh & another” has been decided by this Court on 26.4.2011 holding th