RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) THE respondent-tenant has been granted leave to contest the petition filed by the petitioner seeking his eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act.
(2.) THE tenant filed this application raising various defences including the fact that the petitioner is not an NRI and has no locus standi to invoke the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. Other prayer that she does not have any intention to come back and settle in India to challenge the personal need of the petitioner is also raised. When the notice of this application was issued, the petitioner-landlady filed reply. The allegations made by the respondent-tenant were denied. The petitioner also disclosed that fees for sanctioning the site plan where she wanted to start her business has also been deposited to justify her need for personal necessity of this shop.
(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY the respondent has made allegation against the petitioner that she advanced threat to him and made an attempt to interfere in his possession over the shop. Respondent has also disclosed that the petitioner approached him to purchase the shop for Rs. Ten lacs or to vacate the same by getting Rs. One lac. This was refused by the respondent which was in the presence of Sanjeev Kumar son of Kasturi Lal and Harmesh Singh son of Hari Singh. When the respondent did not agree to this proposal, the petitioner had got the roof of her adjoining shop demolished with a plan to cause damage to the shop in occupation of the respondent.;