- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by Rent Controller, Phillaur, ordering the ejectment of petitioner from the demised premises, the petitioner has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the application of petitioner seeking leave to defend. Respondent Maya Devi Panesar filed a petition under Section 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), seeking the ejectment of petitioner from the shop on rent with him on the ground that she had purchased the said shop on 2.9.1993. She is non-resident Indian residing in London but having Indian passport. She being old lady could not bear the cold weather of United Kingdom and has decided to return to India and live at Phillaur, where she intend to start business in the shop in question along with her daughter to earn her livelihood.
(2.) On notice, petitioner sought leave to defend by moving application under sub-section 5 to Section 18A of the Act on the ground as follows:-- "(i) Maya Devi is not a non-resident Indian. (ii) She is not the owner or landlady of the demised shop. (iii) Respondent and her daughter do not require the demised shop to start any business. This petition has been filed to misuse the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. The respondent is 85 years of age and is financially sound and at this stage of life, the question of starting any business by the respondent does not arise. The daughter of respondent is a teacher and getting salary. She has not even returned to India so far. (iv) Petition has not been filed by a competent person. Nirmal Kaur, attorney of the respondent has no authority to file this petition."
(3.) Learned Rent Controller on appraisal of pleadings and documents on file, reached the conclusion as follows:-- "(i) The respondent is proved to be a non-resident Indian. (ii) The registered sale deed in favour of respondent and the assessment record prove the title of the respondent over the demised premises. These documents have not been rebutted by the petitioner. (iii) The shop falls within the municipal area and provisions of the Act are applicable to the present case. (iv) The respondent has bona fide necessity for the shop in question and the petitioner has failed to produce any document on file to rebut her bona fide necessity.";