RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

Respondent-landlady filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the averments that she is owner cum landlady of the premises in dispute and a Non Resident Indian and at present permanently settled in England with her family. She is owner of the property as detailed in the plaint to the extent of 33/320 shares and had constructed two big godowns in a part of the land which are exclusively owned and possessed by her and have been duly depicted as ‘ABCD’ in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question, i.e. both the godowns @ Rs.5500 per month since April 2005. The tenancy is oral and there is no formal document in the shape of any rent note etc. The petitioner was making payment of rent @ Rs.5500 per month through her special attorney Raghbir Parshad son of Ram Saroop, who was also issuing receipts; but the petitioner was in arrears of rent since July 2011. He was also requested to vacate the premises in question as the respondent herself was in need of the same for her own use and occupation being NRI landlady as her husband Shaminder Singh is going to retire from his private job in England within a short span of time and as such the respondent wants to start her own business here in India in the premises in question after getting the same vacated from the petitioner, as husband of the respondent-landlady is also having his property at village Pilkhani in Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. The petitioner was also served a legal notice dated 09.02.2012 and after receiving the said notice he made payment of arrears of rent upto 31.03.2012 by way of an account payee cheque, but has failed to vacate the premises in question. Hence the petition.

Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant moved an application for grant of leave to defend on the ground that the respondent is a permanent resident of London (UK) and is well settled there, and there were no chances of her settling in India for doing any business by her husband. The respondent-landlady and her husband are having other commercial properties where they can start the business, if so desire.

The prayer of the petitioner-tenant was contested by the respondent-landlady by filing reply to the application for grant of leave to defend. The Rent Controller, Rajpura vide impugned order dated 24.12.2012 has rejected the prayer of the petitioner-tenant and has directed him to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent-landlady.

While passing the impugned order, the Rent Controller has held that the respondent-landlady is an NRI within the meaning of provisions of Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rent Act’) and the question of having any additional accommodation with her husband does not arise at all as it is the specific case of the respondent-landlady that she requires the demised premises for the purpose of running business and the need of the landlord has to be construed from the dual perspective of necessity, availability and suitability. Moreover, it was not the requirement of law under Section 13B of the Rent Act that an NRI shall not own or possess any other building in the urban area concerned. While declining the leave to contest, the Rent Controller further held that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove on record necessary facts and particulars or any document, even prima facie showing that requirement of the respondent-landlady is not bonafide, and thus, no triable issue is raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant and the application is liable to be rejected.

Challenging the aforesaid impugned order of the Rent Controller, Rajpura, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued that the Rent Controller while dismissing the application of the petitioner has nether considered nor appreciated the controversy in its right perspective and passed