The central legal point established in the judgment is the stringent requirements for ejectment of a tenant by an NRI landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, 1949, and the presumption in favor of the landlord's genuine need.

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Dasuya in Rent Petition No.64 of 2010 titled as Satnam Singh v. Paramjit Singh filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “Act, 1949”) whereby an application filed by the present revision petitioner (respondent in the main petition) for grant of leave to contest the rent petition, had been dismissed and he was directed to vacate the shop described in the head note of the petition (hereinafter to be mentioned as the “demised shop”) within a period of two months and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the petitioner.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereunder as per their original nomenclature as given in the main petition.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Satnam Singh through his father and General Power of Attorney holder Sh. Balkar Singh filed the above mentioned petition seeking ejectment of the respondent on the grounds that he along with his brother had purchased a plot vide sale deed dated 22.05.1996. They had partitioned this plot and on the land of his share in the said plot, the petitioner had constructed the demised shop. This shop had been rented out to the respondent, through the father of the petitioner as he himself was living in a foreign country and is an NRI. The petitioner pleaded that he wanted to return to India and to start his own business in the demised shop. He did not have any other shop in India. The respondent owned two shops adjoining the demised shop. He was requested to vacate the demised shop but failed to do so. Hence, prayer had been made for directing the respondent to vacate the demised shop.

4. The respondent appeared in response to the notice and filed application for grant of leave to contest the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not an NRI. He did not hold any P.I.O. Card issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and did not qualify to be an NRI. More so, he was not landlord/owner of the demised shop. The respondent had never been inducted as a tenant over this shop by him. The co-owner of the demised had not been impleaded as a party. The petitioner was well settled in Germany and was doing his business there and had no reason to settle in India. While asserting that no cause of action had accrued in favour of the petitioner and further that he was estopped from filing the petition, it was prayed that the respondent deserved to be given permission for leave to contest the petition.

5. In response to the abovesaid application, the petitioner filed reply controverting the pleas taken in the application and re-asserting those of the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the contentions raised by both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 15.05.2012.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed by the respondent-revision petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the impugned order dated 15.05.2012 was not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued that the learned Rent Controller had committed a grave error in dismissing the application as filed by the applicant, for leave to contest. The observations made by learned Rent Controller were based on conjectures and surmises. He did not apply his judicious mind. The petitioner was not proved to be Non-Resident Indian falling under the definition of Section 2 (dd) of the Act, 1949. He was held to be an NRI on the basis of documents which were not admissible in evidence. The petitioner had not returned back to India which was one of the essential requirements of the Act, 1949. There was nothing on record to show that he had any intention to return and to settle in India either. He had nowhere pleaded that he had gone a