SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside the order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the respondent (a Non-Resident Indian landlord) under Section 13-B of the Act, has been dismissed and consequently the ejectment application filed by the respondent has been allowed and the petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of three months.
(2.) THE respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act from the demised premises, which is one room on the first floor of the building situated at Phagwara on the ground that he requires the said room for his personal use. After receiving the summons of that ejectment application, the petitioner filed an application for leave to contest the said application on the ground that the respondent is not an Non Resident Indian, he is not the owner of the demised premises for the last five years; he does not require the room for his bona fide use and occupation, and the present petition filed by the respondent is a second petition filed by him, which is not maintainable. The Rent Controller dismissed the said application after holding that the respondent is an Non-Resident Indian and is the owner of the demised premises for the last more than five years and he requires the demised premises for his bona fide use. It is held that the petitioner has failed to rebut the strong presumption in favour of the NRI landlord by leading cogent evidence to show that the respondent is not an Non-Resident India landlord, he is not the owner of the demised premises for the last five years and his requirement is not genuine and bona fide.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner assailed the order passed by the Rent Controller on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondent has not proved his ownership on the building. He submits that as per the judgment and decree dated 4.11.1985, the property in question was in the names of the mother and sister of the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that before the death of his mother, she had executed a will in his favour. Counsel contends that since the will has not been proved, therefore, the respondent cannot be taken as co- owner of the building. Secondly that the respondent-landlord can seek ejectment under Section 13-B of the Act once in a life time. But in the instant case, he had earlier filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act regarding the same premises, which was dismissed in default. Therefore, the second petition filed by him is not maintainable.;