The heavy burden on the tenant to prove that the landlord's requirement is not genuine and the special rights granted to NRI landlords under Section 13-B of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the tenantpetitioner against the order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The landlord-respondent had filed an ejectment application under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was accepted by the Rent Controller.

2. The landlord-respondent averred that he is a NRI and is residing in the UK and is holding a British passport. According to the landlordrespondent he is the owner of the premises in dispute in which the tenantpetitioner was inducted as a tenant about 9 years ago. According to the landlord-respondent the tenant-petitioner had failed to pay the rent and that the landlord-respondent required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. As per the landlord-respondent he and his children were settled abroad but due to political and economic uncertainty they had decided to settle in the country of their origin.

3. The tenant-petitioner filed an application seeking leave to defend which was allowed by the Rent Controller. Thereafter the tenantpetitioner filed a written statement taking the pleas of mis-joinder of parties and that the signatures of the landlord-responded on the ejectment application and affidavit did not tally with his signatures on his passport. According to the tenant-petitioner the landlord-respondent wanted to either increase the rent or alienate the premises in dispute. It was denied that the landlord-respondent is a NRI or that he fulfilled the requirements of Section 13-B of the Act. It was denied that the landlord-respondent required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. It was stated that the landlord-respondent owned several other buildings and did not require premises in dispute for his use and occupation.

4. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :

1. Whether petitioner is entitled for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises being NRI u/s 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Punjab ? OPP

2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR

3. Relief.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, vide order dated 23.07.2010 the Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner. It was found that the landlord-respondent was a NRI and required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. It was also found that the premises in dispute could not be declared to be a residential property. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has contended that the premises in dispute was a residential property and the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner could not have been ordered under Section 13-B of the Act. It was argued that the landlord-respondent had failed to prove that the premises in dispute were required by him for his own use and occupation. It is also contended that the ejectment petition was filed while another petition filed by the wife of the landlord-respondent against another tenant was pending.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that it had been proved from the passport of the landlordrespondent that he was a NRI. It was also proved from the sale deed in favour of the landlord-respondent that he had been owner of the premises in dispute for almost nine years before filing the ejectment application and therefore the ejectment application under Section 13-B of the Act was maintainable by him. It was submitted that the landlord-respondent by appearing as PW1 had stated and proved that the premises in dispute was required by him as he intended to return to India and run his business. According to counsel the pendency of the wife's ejectment petition when the present ejectment petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Act would be of no consequence as admittedly the said earlier ejectmen