- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 15.01.2014, whereby, application moved by respondent No. 1 for leave to contest the ejectment petition, was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had sought ejectment of the tenant under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'Act') as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh. Petitioner was only required to establish that he was a Non-Resident Indian and was owner of the premises in question.
(2.) In the present case, petitioner has sought ejectment of respondent No. 1 under Section 13-B of the Act. Respondent No. 1 moved an application for leave to contest the petition on the ground that there was no relationship between the parties. In fact, it was averred by the petitioner that Sukhjinder Singh Sodhi had sublet the premises in question to respondent No. 1 and it was further pleaded that petitioner was not the owner of the premises in question.
(3.) The Apex Court in 'Rachpal Singh and others v. Gurmit Kaur and others, 2009 2 RCR(Rent) 112' has held as under:- "If some triable issues are raised then the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through cross-examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits and other material documents. Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirement and his assertion is required to be tested more so when the status of the respondent has been specifically challenged and also when the landlord-tenant relationship is in question. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the common order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petitions 4096 of 2007 and connected matters dated 28.4.2008.";