Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.: - Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 15.02.2011, whereby the application to leave to contest was rejected and eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller, Ludhaina, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the ‘Act’).

2. The reasoning given by the Court is that the respondent was the son of Sampuran Singh, with whom the petitioner admittedly was a tenant and once the parentage had been established that the respondent had inherited the property from his father and rent had also been paid to him. Keeping in mind the fact that he was an NRI and had been settled abroad and required the premises for his bona fide personal necessity being an Engineer on return to India and therefore, eviction order was passed. The aspect that the respondent was having another residential house bearing No.307, Model Town, Ludhiana, would not be a ground to grant leave to contest and the earlier petition had been withdrawn merely since an objection had been raised that the tenant had not been sued through a proper person and no triable issue having arisen, the four necessary ingredients having been proved under Section 13-B of the Act, the landlord was to be granted the necessary relief.

3. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed by the respondent, initially on 01.10.2001 (Annexure A2) against Tara Singh, the alleged proprietor of the present petitioner-M/s Remy Cycle Industries. The ground taken was that he was an NRI and was holding a passport of Bahrain and he was the owner of plot No.398, situated at Ahluwalia Street, Millerganj, Ludhiana, which was a non-residential building comprising of 3 rooms, office, 2 verandahs and open space in which the petitioner was a tenant and was paying rent and there existed a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. The ground of eviction was that he had not paid arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2001 @ Rs.300/- per month besides house tax and the premises were required by the respondent for his personal use and occupation and for his family members as he was a qualified Engineer and was earlier serving in Bahrain. He had left that country and come to India with a view to settle and the eldest son was studying in B.Com 1st year and the younger son studying in plus one. The need was for starting of own business of cycle parts in the property in dispute and it was suitable for establishing a business house as all the facilities, requirements and infrastructure were easily available in and near the said locality. The son would be joining him in the business and he possessed the necessary skill and expertise. A promise had been given to vacate the premises in May, 2001 but the tenant later on resiled for some mala fide reasons. It was further alleged that he had the requisite money to demolish the building and establish the business, as per the requirement and therefore, needed the immediate possession of the building. The copy of the passport of the petitioner in proof was attached.

4. The petitioner, then, had filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act that M/s Remy Cycle Industries was the tenant and paying rent and not Tara Singh, on account of which, an application was filed for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file another one by impleading the said firm as respondent. Keeping in view the application, the counsel withdrew the first petition, after getting his statement recorded on 12.01.2004.

5. Thereafter, the petition was filed against the present petitioner in which Tara Singh was arrayed as a partner on the same set of allegations and the factum of the earlier litigation was mentioned specifically and that the present petition had been filed on raising objections by Tara Singh in the first petition. It was specifically pleaded that the respondent was the son of Sampuran Singh and the