HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE tenants are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 6.4.2004 whereby the application filed by the tenants for granting leave to contest the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") was dismissed and consequently ejectment order was passed in favour of the landlord.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord has sought ejectment on the ground that he is a British citizen and he wants to wind up his affairs in England and intends to come back and settle in the India. He has further pleaded that he is the owner of the demised premises since the year 1990 and, thus, he satisfies the condition precedent for seeking eviction of the tenant in a summary manner in terms of Section 13-B of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the intention of the landlord to settle permanently in India is seriously disputed and such aspect cannot be decided without granting leave to the petitioners to contest the petition on merits. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme COurt reported as Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, 2001(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 33 : (2001) Supreme Court Cases 706, to contend that the tenant cannot be thrown out summarily, if prima facie he is able to say that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide or untenable and as such not entitled to obtain an order of eviction.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make out any prima facie case for grant in leave to contest the case. As per landlord, he is a British citizen and intends to return to India permanently. The only challenge is that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine.;