Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.2.2013 of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby his application for grant of leave to defend has been rejected in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') by the respondent-landlord.

The respondent claiming himself a non-resident Indian and landlord of the demised premises sought eviction of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act submitting that he fulfills all the necessary ingredients to get benefit under the aforesaid provisions.

Upon service, the petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 6 appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an application seeking grant of leave to defend alleging that the respondent-landlord was not entitled to the benefits of Section 13-B of the Act as he did not fulfill the conditions as prescribed under the law being a Canadian citizen. It was further submitted that the respondent-landlord has filed another petition under Section 13-B of the Act earlier also and therefore, the present petition was not maintainable. A further ground was taken that one single petition regarding two independent tenancies is not maintainable as only one shop was rented out to Dr. Diwan Singh (predecessor in interest of the petitioner) whereas other shop was independently let out to one Amarjit Singh vide separate lease deed. It was also submitted that the respondent-landlord did not require the demised premises for his personal use and occupation as he has no intention to settle in India and therefore, the need of the respondent-landlord was not bona fide. A further submission was made that the demised premises consist of very small area and will be of no use to the respondent-landlord as he will not be able to utilize the same for his business.

The said application was contested by the respondent-landlord and vide impugned order dated 22.2.2013, the same has been rejected.

Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner-tenant has filed the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

In support of his case, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent is not an NRI as he holds a Canadian passport and thus, is a foreigner. It has been further argued on behalf of the petitioner that though issue with regard to the definition of NRI has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini AIR 2006 SC 59 yet the issue as raised in this petition is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.189 of 2011 and thus, the petitioner has raised a triable issue and the Rent Controller has erred at law while declining to leave to defend the petition.

At this stage, it may be noticed that this Court in CR No.7630 of 2012 (Rakesh Rishi Versus Bakhshish Kaur) decided on 5.8.2013, has already taken note of the pendency of SLP No.189 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and has observed in the following manner:

“.......The pendency of SLP No.189 of 2011 on a similar issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court will not make any effect for deciding the instant case, as such a question was raised before this Court in the case of ‘Ranjit Puri v. Dr. Mohinder Paul Singh’ (2012-13) Vol.CLXVII PLR 309 which was negated by this court holding that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in different SLPs, has stayed eviction which are peculiar to the said cases and it is not acceptable that Rent Controllers will be barred from proceeding with the trial of cases under Section 13-B of the Act on account of the fact that the tenants are setting up fresh challenge to the definition of NRI landlord.”

Similarly in CR No.4525 of 2013 (Bansal Trading and another Versus Dr. Viranmol Singh Toor and others) decided on 3.9.2013, this Court has observed as under:

“It may further be noticed that operation of the