Vinod K.Sharma, J. - (1.) Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Garhshankar declining the leave to defend to the petitioner.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent had tiled a petition under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) for ejectment of the respondent from the shop marked ABCD shown red in colour in the site plan of the petition bounded as under: East: Remaining building of the petitioner. West: PWD Road, Garhshankar to Hoshiarpur. North: Shop of the petitioner in possession of Sukh Dev Verma. South: Private passage of petitioner being Khata No. 185/196, Khasra No. 408 as per Jambandi for the year 199697 situated in ward No. 5 within the urban area of Garhshankar.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant had sought leave to contest the petition under Section 13-B of the Act on the following grounds: (a) The petitioner is not owner of the building in dispute. (b) The petitioner is not NRI. (c) The origin of the petitioner is not India. (d) The petitioner is an old lady of the age of 90 years and she is unable to do any work. (e) The petitioner had not disclosed full detail of her property situated within the urban area of Garhshankar. (f) The petitioner is in possession of shop lying vacant but not disclosed the fact in her petition. (g) The petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. (h) The petitioner has not returned to India as alleged. (i) The intention of the petitioner is not bona fide. (j) The complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the case which can be decided after taking evidence. (k) The shop in dispute is situated within the red line of Garhshankar and it does not bear Khasra No. 408.;