RANJIT SINGH, J. - Aggrieved against the order directing ejectment of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, “the Act”), he has filed the present petition to impugn the order of Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The demised shop was given on rent to the petitioner by father of the respondent in the year 1983. Claiming himself to be a landlord and Non Resident Indian, the respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised shop. In order to prove that the respondent is owner of the shop, he has relied upon an order passed in the year 1973 by Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Jalandhar. The respondent pleads that he is a practicing Advocate under the under the Immigration and Human Rights Law and has sought ejectment of the petitioner from the shop on the ground that he has contacted Mangat & Company for their affiliation in India and intends to open an affiliated office of the said Company at Jalandhar. Contention further is that son of the respondent, namely, Amanjot Kalkat, intends to open an office in Canada as an affiliate of Mangat and Company. It is claimed that the respondent is already engaged as an expert by Mangat and Company and, thus, demised shop is required by him for his own use.

2. The petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an application, seeking leave to defend the petition, which was granted on 23.9.2002. The petitioner thereafter filed a written reply, raising objection in regard to the maintainability of the petition. It is pleaded that necessary ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act have not been impleaded. It is further urged that the respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands. The rate of rent, as claimed, is also denied. In addition, it is pointed out that the ejectment petition is not maintainable in view of another ejectment petition pending between the parties filed under Section 13 of the Act. On this basis, it is urged that the respondent would have an option either to pursue the present petition or the previous petition under the normal provisions. The status of the respondent as NRI is also challenged and so too the bonafide need on his part of the demised shop. On the basis of pleadings, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the petitioner is Non-resident Indian? OPP

2. Whether petitioner requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation? OPP

3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether petition is barred by estoppel? OPR

5. Whether petitioner is entitled to ejectment as prayed for? OPP

6. Relief.”

Both the parties then led evidence, which was appreciated by the Rent Controller. Issue No.1, relating to the respondent being NRI is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. Other issues were also accordingly decided.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has made one fold submission before me in regard to the maintainability of this petition. This, according to the counsel, is not correctly decided by the Rent Controller. He submits that a previous petition filed under Section 13 of the Act is pending. It is noticed by the Rent Controller that there is no bar in moving a petition under Section 13-B of the Act during the pendency of the petition under Section 13. The petitioner had withdrawn this ground, as raised under Section 13 of the Act, on the date when present petition is decided under Section 13-B of the Act simultaneously. This, according to the counsel, would act as resjudicata and as such, is enough to set-aside the impugned order. The counsel has referred to the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. Rochiram Nagdeo, 1999 (1) RCR (Rent) 483. Counsel would emphasise the observations, which are to the effect that rules of resjudicata prohibits the Court for trying an issue, which has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been heard and finally decided by that Court.

4. O