- (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-landlady, is to the order dated 06.07.2013 (Annexure P4), passed by the Rent Controller, Bathinda, wherein it has allowed the application to contest, filed under Section 18-A(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act'). The reasoning given by the Rent Controller, in its one page order, whereby the brief background of the case was given, is that there are certain grounds given in the application to give an opportunity to contest the application and therefore, in the interest of justice, the said application was allowed. Relevant portion of the order read as under: "As per the averments of the applicant/respondent he has sufficient evidence and he has already mentioned certain grounds in his application for giving opportunity to defend the petition against the petitioner and in case respondent is not allowed to contest the eviction application by granting leave to contest, he will suffer irreparable loss and an opportunity of being heard is must. Hence in the interest of justice, the application is allowed. Now, to come up on 23.07.2013 for filing reply to the main petition." A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that an application under Section 13-B of the Act was filed by the petitioner-landlady for possession of the shop on the ground that she holds a Malaysian passport and was married to an Indian citizen, who is in Government service and she fell within the definition of an NRI and was owner of a portion of the building which comprised of two shops. Her father was the initial owner, who left a registered Will, giving the building to a son and five daughters and on account of the death of the father, as per the family settlement dated 21.04.2005, partition proceedings had been effected. The disputed shop and the adjoining shop went to the share of the petitioner and therefore, she was the owner for more than 5 years. It was alleged that she had returned to India in March, 2011 and intended to settle at Bathinda permanently. The shop in question was to be used to start business of departmental store with the help of her son, Sukhjinder Singh, who was unemployed and idle.
(2.) The application was contested by filing an application to leave to contest under Section 18-A(5) of the Act, in which, various grounds were taken that the landlady was not falling under the definition of NRI, as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act as she was not born in India and was of foreign origin and the eviction proceedings were contested. An earlier petition had been filed for personal necessity, which had been dismissed as withdrawn on 14.08.2008 and that she had other shops and therefore, she was estopped by her own act and conduct.
(3.) In the reply to the application, the pleadings under Section 13-B were reiterated that she was an NRI and the sale deed in favour of her father was appended and that even if she was born in Malaysia, she would be an NRI as her father was of Indian origin and nationality and was the owner of the shop. The registered Will gave her the title on account of the death of her father and as per the family settlement, she was entitled to get the building vacated. The earlier petition was filed under ordinary law, which was withdrawn on 14.08.2008, since she was not the owner for 5 years but that would not take away her rights of special remedy and whether there was bona fide requirement and therefore, leave to contest should be declined.;