- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 13.8.2013 whereby application moved by the respondents for leave to contest the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner, was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for leave to contest the ejectment petition was liable to be dismissed as there was no such requirement under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('the Act' for short) that in case, where there was a dispute qua relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the tenant could be allowed to contest the ejectment petition. The impugned order dated 13.8.2013 reads as under:- "Heard on application under Section 18B of the Urban Rent Act. Leave to defend can be granted to tenant to decide the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. If there is any triable issue between the tenant and landlord then leave to defend can not be provided to the tenant. In the present case, the respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is a well settled law that the relationship between the parties is denied then it is a triable issue in such cases leave to defend can be granted. In these circumstances, I deem it fit to grant leave to defend the respondent/defendant and hear the defendant and landlord on merits of the case and then decide the issue between them on merits after hearing both the parties. In view thereof the application under Section 18A has been allowed. Now to come up on 30.8.2013 for filing of written statement."
(2.) The Apex Court in Rachpal Singh and others v. Gurmit Kaur and others, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 786 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."
(3.) In the present case, petitioner has filed the ejectment petition under Section 13B of the Act on the ground that she was a non-resident Indian and required the premises in question for her personal use and occupation. Respondents filed an application seeking permission to contest the ejectment petition. The case of the respondents was that the premises in question had been rented out by Swaran Kaur to the father of respondents at monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. Hence, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since the tenant has disputed the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it can be said that triable issue arises in this case and the Rent Controller rightly granted permission to respondents to contest the ejectment petition. No ground for interference is made out.;