The main legal point established in the judgment is that a holder of a foreign passport can be considered an NRI under the Act, and the landlord's personal necessity is best judged by the landlord.

JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J. - Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/ tenant seeking setting aside of order dated 22.8.2014 passed by ld. Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby her application u/s 18(4) of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking leave to defend has been rejected and the petition filed by the respondent/landlord u/s 13-B of the Act, for recovery of immediate possession of the residential portion at ground floor comprising of two rooms, one drawing room, dining room, one kitchen, store and three bathrooms and open space, forming part of property No.127-E, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'demised premises') has been allowed.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the demised premises by the mother of the respondent namely Usha Kumari. It is stated case of the petitioner that rate of rent was settled @ Rs.5500/- per month between the parties. Smt. Usha Kumari, original landlord, died on 28.9.2009 in England. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that after the death of Usha Kumari rent was received by the respondent upto January 2013 and for which no receipt was allegedly issued by the respondent. Thereafter the respondent-NRI landlord, who holds English Passport and therefore, entitled to file petition u/s 13-B of the Act filed the present petition (Annexure P-2) u/s 13-B of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent bonafidely and genuinely required demised premises for his personal use and occupation of his family; that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since September 2009; and that the demised premises are the most suitable for the respondent.

3. Pursuant thereto petitioner filed present application for leave to defend u/s 18(4) of the Act on 18.4.2013 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner contested the ejectment petition filed by the respondent inter alia on the ground that no legal and valid service had been effected by the respondent; respondent is not entitled to claim benefit of Section 13-B of the Act as he cannot claim to be NRI as defined under the Act being a British citizen; respondent has no locus to file the eviction petition u/s 13-B; need of the respondent is not genuine or bonafide; the first and second floors of the building where the demised premises are located are fit for human habitation and can be used by the respondent instead of the demised premises; identity of the respondent is disputed; rent was paid upto January 2013 and that the respondent had failed to disclose whether he intends to return to India permanently or for temporary period; and that the respondent plans to sell the demised property after getting it vacated.

4. Vide impugned order dated 22.8.2014 the above said application (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the ejectment petition filed by the respondent was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order.

5. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the Passport of the respondent/landlord appended as Annexure P-7 with the present revision petition shows that nationality of the respondent is shown to be British citizen. It is submitted that accordingly the respondent is not an NRI as defined under the Act and was therefore, not competent to seek eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises u/s 13-B of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner refers to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Krishan Groverand others v Union of India and othersLaw Finder Doc Id # 1621507 and submits that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the right of the landlord being NRI but not that of a foreign national.

6. It is further submitted that a perusal of para 5 of the ejectment petition P2 filed by the respondent shows that the