AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. D. Anand, J.—The petitioner herein is a tenant who has a grievance with the validity of the impugned order vide which his application for leave to defend was declined by the learned Rent Controller.
It is argued with a certain amount of vehemence that learned Rent Controller ought to have allowed the leave to defend in view of the fact that there were arugeable points which had been raised by the petitioner herein. It is pointed out that the petitionertenant had raised a precise plea that there are more than one premises other than the tenanted accommodation which is available for user by the respondentlandlord.
There is plethora of law on the point that even if an NRI under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinfter referred to as �the Act�) owns more than one premises, it is open to him to decide to relate the special provisions of Section 13B of the Act to one particular premises. He cannot, of course, extend it to more than one premises. Discretion is, of course, of that of the landlord to decide the premises in respect of which he would like to file a plea for ejectment in terms of provisions of Section 13B of the Act.
In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.