G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The tenant has filed the present revision petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) aggrieved against the order of eviction dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby leave to contest under Section 18-A of the Act has been denied. Resultantly, summary eviction has been ordered of the petitioner from the premises in question which is a flat situated on the first floor as described in the head-note of the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act.

2. The reasoning given by the Rent Controller is that the landlady was an Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and owner of the property for the last 5 years prior to the institution of the proceedings and bona-fide requirement was there as she wanted to return to India. Resultantly, keeping in view the principle settled by the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini, 2005 (4) RCR 492 SC, it was held that the presumption would be in favour of the landlady and, therefore, the eviction has been ordered. It has also been noticed that on an earlier occasion the petitioner-tenant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.06.2012 and later moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. The application was allowed on 17.04.2014. Thereafter, an application for dismissing the petition was filed on the ground that the parties have entered into an agreement to sell with the original owner. The same had been contested on the ground that the application was filed, but leave to defend was not filed within 15 days after setting aside the ex-parte proceeding. The agreement to sell had been denied and the defence taken by the landlord was that within 15 days the said application has not been filed, even after setting aside of the proceedings had been directed on 17.04.2014.

3. The petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed on 21.12.2011 taking the plea by the respondent-landlord that she was owner vide sale deed dated 22.03.2002, which was duly executed in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar. Thereafter, the present petitioner had been inducted as a tenant before she went to United Kingdom (UK). She being an NRI possessed a Passport issued by UK and was residing there for the last 10 years and was a person of Indian Origin. The passport was issued on 02.06.2005 and even the fact that she had a driving license issued by the Licensing Authority, Derby was pleaded. Resultantly, being owner of the property for more than a period of requisite 5 years, the application was filed on the ground that she had returned to India as her husband had undergone major surgery in U.K. He was alleged to belong to Tehsil Nakodar in District Jalandhar and wanted to come back and settle at Jalandhar alongwith her family on account of the medical infrastructure available. The medical facilities at Nakodar was not up to mark and the need of the petitioner was bona-fide. She and her husband and children visited India frequently and had no other property/accommodation except the property at Jalandhar.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the matter is pending before the Apex Court regarding the issue that person having foreign passport would not fall in a definition of NRI and merely because two SLPs have been dismissed against the order passed in Krishan Kumar and Others vs. Kamla Devi and Others, 2016 (1) RCR (Rent) 525, this Court should stay its hands.

5. Reliance has been placed upon the issue of the D.K. Trivedi and Sons and Others vs. State of Gujarat, 1986 (1) SCR 479 to hold out that this Court should stay its hands until the matters are disposed by the Apex Court. Further contention was that the agreement to sell had been entered and, therefore, leave to contest should have been granted. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in R. Kanthimathi and Others vs. Mrs. Beatrice Xavier, 2000 (9) SCC 339 to contend that leave to contest