***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present revision petition has been instituted under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), read conjointly with Constitution of India Article 227 thereof, impugning the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional correctness of the order dated 28.01.2026 rendered by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking leave to defend under Section 18-A of the Act and has, in consequence thereof, proceeded to pass a summary order of eviction against the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act.

2. The respondent–landlord, asserting his status as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and expressing a definitive intention to resettle in India, instituted an ejectment petition under the provisions of the Act, claiming to be the owner–landlord of the demised premises. The petition was founded upon the ground of bona fide personal necessity, it being averred that he intends to occupy the premises to facilitate the medical treatment and personal care of his mother, who is stated to be suffering from multiple and serious ailments.

3. Upon service of notice, the petitioner–tenant entered appearance and filed an application seeking leave to defend in terms of Section 18-A of the Act. The said application was contested by the respondent–landlord and, vide the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller declined the prayer for leave to defend and consequently passed a summary order of ejectment against the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court through the present petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have meticulously perused the entire paper-book and material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and suffers from patent infirmities. It is urged that the learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner in their proper perspective and has erroneously presumed the ownership of the respondent–landlord. According to the petitioner, the document dated 10.01.2019 does not, ipso facto, constitute a valid conveyance of ownership in favour of the respondent and is merely an administrative communication regarding transfer of rights pursuant to a registered Will. It is further contended that the mere production of an attested or notarized photocopy of such document does not amount to legal proof of title.

6.1. It is additionally argued that the alleged personal necessity is neither genuine nor bona fide. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that earlier efforts were made by Smt. Neelima Tewari to secure vacation of the premises for the purpose of sale, and that property dealers had visited the premises. An affidavit of one Tejinder Singh has been relied upon to suggest an intention to purchase the property. It is further contended that Smt. Neelima Tewari is presently residing at Patiala and is receiving medical treatment there, and that the respondent–landlord and his family possess residential accommodation at Patiala. It is also emphasized that the respondent–landlord has not physically returned to India and has instituted the proceedings through a power of attorney.

6.2. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has categorically denied the execution of the rent agreements dated 15.02.2017 and 15.02.2018, terming them forged and fabricated documents. It is argued that when the foundational tenancy documents are disputed, a substantial triable issue arises, warranting the grant of leave to defend. The petitioner has also denied the status of the respondent as landlord, asserting instead that Smt. Neelima Tewari was receiving rent, and has relied upon bank account statements in support thereof.

7. It is apposite to note that by virtue of the statutory amendment to the Act, a special and expeditious remedy has been conferred upon Non-Resident Indians intending to return to India, enabling them to recover possession of one residential building for their genuine and bona fide need under Section 13-B of the Act. The legislative intent underlying the said provision is to provide a swift mechanism, subject to limited grounds of contest.

7.1. Under Section 18-A of the Act, the tenant’s right to contest is circumscribed. Leave to defend may be granted only where the tenant, by way of a duly sworn affidavit, discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. The scope of defence is confined to the parameters of Section 13-B, namely: (i) that the landlord is not an NRI; (ii) that he is not the owner of the premises; or (iii) that his requirement is not genuine or bona fide.

7.2. In the present case, the learned Rent Controller has recorded that the respondent–landlord produced a certified copy of his passport issued by the United States of America and a notarized copy of his Permanent Resident Card issued by the competent authorities in the USA, thereby establishing his status as an NRI. It is not disputed that the original owner–landlord of the demised premises was Jagdish Kumar Tewari, father of the respondent. The respondent has placed on record a notarized copy of a letter dated 10.01.2019 evidencing transfer of the dwelling unit in his favour on the basis of a registered Will.

7.3. Even de hors the mutation entry, the respondent, being the son and legal heir of the deceased owner, would, in the absence of any contrary material, be entitled to succeed to the estate. The mutation in his sole favour pursuant to the registered Will further fortifies his claim of ownership. The contention that rent was collected by Smt. Neelima Tewari, who is stated to be the power of attorney holder of the respondent, does not dilute the respondent’s status as landlord, particularly when he resides abroad and the rent is received on his behalf.

7.4. With regard to the plea of bona fide necessity, the material on record, including medical documents, indicates that Smt. Neelima Tewari is suffering from multiple ailments. If the respondent–landlord, being her son, intends to return to India to personally attend to and care for his ailing mother, such requirement cannot be characterized as mala fide or a mere pretext. The statutory right conferred upon an NRI landlord cannot be negated on speculative assertions or unsubstantiated allegations of intended sale.

7.5. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Rent Controller has duly considered the pleadings and material on record and has assigned cogent reasons while declining leave to defend. The petitioner has failed to disclose any fact which, if proved, would disentitle the respondent from obtaining an order of eviction. No jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity is discernible in the reasoning adopted by the learned Rent Controller.

7.6. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.

8. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. No further orders are required to be passed in that regard.

Petition dismissed.

********