JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant challenging the order dated 5.9.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby his application for leave to defend has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts are that in January 2001 Kishan Chand, father of the present respondent/landlord had let out the demised premises - the same being describable as 'building No.4265/18, situated in Gali No. 4, Vijay Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar' - to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.650/-. Since then the petitioner is stated to have been running his small business in this shop 'Electrical Spare Parts' and has been regularly paying the rent. As per petitioner's own case upon the death of Kishan Chand the petitioner has been regularly paying the rent to the present respondent/landlord.

3. On 28.9.2021 the respondent filed rent petition being RP/409/2021 under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short 'the 1949 Act') before the Rent Controller, Amritsar, for ejectment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that this shop is required for his bona fide need as after retirement he wants to run a business of Karyana shop from the demised premises. It was stated in the petition that the respondent/landlord had retired from Central Government Department, BSNL on 31.1.2020 and therefore, required this shop for his bona fide need. Notice was issued by the Rent Controller, Amritsar to the present petitioner/tenant for 14.10.2021; whereupon the petitioner/tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an application for leave to defend. Respondent/landlord filed a reply to the application for leave to defend and denied all of the grounds.

4. The learned Rent Controller after considering all the material on record and pleadings of the parties, dismissed petitioner's application for leave to defend vide impugned order dated 5.9.2022, and held as under:-

'11. The applicant has badly failed to raise any ground in present application on the basis of which leave to contest can be granted in his favour. The applicant has failed to raise any arguable point on the basis of which he can be permitted to contest the present petition under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The present application is having no base and the same is liable to be dismissed. In view of my above discussion, the present application for leave to contest filed by the applicant is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed'.

5. It is this order dated 5.9.2022 which has been challenged by way of present revision petition. Mr. Divanshu Jain, appears on caveat on behalf of the respondent-landlord.

6. The primary contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that as per provisions of Section 13A of the 1949 Act right to recover immediate possession is only with regard to a 'residential' or 'scheduled building'. It is submitted that the demised premises is neither a 'residential building' nor a 'scheduled building', and as such Section 13A of the 1949 Act is not applicable; and therefore, the landlord's petition before the Rent Controller was not maintainable. It was further submitted that petition under Section 13A of the 1949 Act cannot be filed with respect to a non-residential building, if building is required for a residential purpose. Even the relationship of landlord/tenant between the parties is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In support, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgments rendered by this Court in Ram Bilas v Amrik Singh Bedi, 2020(2) RCR (Rent)16; Gurcharan Singh v Gurnam Singh, 2007(1) RCR (Rent) 232; Sudarshan Kumar Bhati v Dharam Pal Sharma, 2009(1) RCR (Rent) 279; Dr.Jagjit Mehta v Dev Brat Sharma, 1988(1) RCR (Rent) 308; and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Brat Sharma v Dr.Jagjit Mehta, 1990(2) PLR 637.

8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant.

9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent