The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, regarding the right of Non-Resident Indian owners to recover immediate possession and the definition of 'building' under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The tenant/petitioner has filed the present revision petition assailing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar rejecting an application for leave to contest the eviction petition, filed in an eviction petition by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. At the outset, it is appropriate to notice that Section 13-B of the Act enables the Non-Resident Indians (a separate category created) to recover immediate possession of the residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building provided he/she/they fulfill the conditions specified in the Act, which is extracted as under: -

"13-B. Right to recover immediate possession of residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building to accrue to Non-resident Indian. (1) Where an owner is a Non-Resident Indian and returns to India and the residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, as the case may be, let out by him or her, is required for his or her use, or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be:

Provided that a right to apply in respect of such a building under this Section, shall be available only after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building and shall be available only once during the life time of such an owner.

(2) Where the owner referred to in sub-section (1), has let out more than one residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, it shall be open to him or her to make an application under that subsection in respect of only one residential building or one scheduled building and/or one non-residential building, each chosen by him or her.

(3) Where an owner recovers possession of a building under this Section, he or she shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or let it out before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building, failing which, the evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored the possession ofthe said building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly."

3. Section 18-A of the Act lays down the procedure for disposal of applications filed under Section 13-A or Section 13-B of the Act. Sub Section (4) of Section 18-A of the Act provides that a tenant would have no right to contest the prayer for eviction filed by the owner of the building unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application seeking his eviction and successfully obtains a leave from the Court of the learned Rent Controller. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini 2005 (12) SCC 778 , has laid down that a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be "sufficient to rebut strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine". The Court went on to hold that the leave to contest should not be granted unless the tenant makes out a strong case for leave to contest.

4. As noticed above, in the present case, an application for grant of leave to contest filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller.

5. For the last four years, the revision petition was kept pending on the ground that the landlord holds a British Passport being a British citizen, therefore, he does not come within the definition of "Non Resident Indian". However, now at the time of final hearing, aforementioned aspect has not been pressed.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, gone through the documents filed as also the record requisitioned from the Rent Controller.

Learned counsel