Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. This is an application for ejectment filed by one Lal Chand against one Mool Chand under Section 13-A(1)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 as amended by Haryana Act No. 10 of 1990 for the ejectment of the latter from the residential premises comprising his tenancy as described in the heading of the application on the ground that he (landlord) is a "specified landlord" and requires the said demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. In the ejectment application, it was also alleged that the tenant is in arrears of rent. Tenant appeared and contested his claim denying that he requires the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation and also the ground of personal necessity is not available to him as he has got vacated residential house No. 8366 a few months ago from one Ram Parshad which he could occupy. 2. Rent Controller, Ambala City allowed him leave to contest the ejectment application feeling that triable issues have arisen and as such leave to defend should be given to the tenant. 3. Not satisfied with this order dated 20.1.1994, landlord has come up in revision to this Court. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a retired government servant. He requires the premises for his own use and occupation and he has no other accommodation with him for his own use and occupation. It is also submitted that house bearing No. 8366, which the tenant says, was got vacated by him from one Ram Parshad does not belong to him. In fact, that house belongs to one Naresh Chander as is borne out from the house tax record. 5. Section 13-A(1) of the Act lays down that "where the application is made by landlord who is an employee of Government of India or of Government of Haryana or of any State owned Board or Corporation of Haryana within one year prior to or after the date of his retirement or discharge or within one year from the date of commencement of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1990, whichever is later, on the ground mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section." 6. Section 13-A(4) says that "the tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the residential building unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid." 7. Section 13-A(5) of the Act says that "the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to the contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the residential building on the ground specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13." 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Rent Controller had granted leave to contest the ejectment application to the tenant justifiably as the defence raised by the tenant was not false and frivolous. He had taken specific defence that the landlord got vacated house No. 8366 four months prior to the filing of the ejectment application, which belongs to him and he could occupy that house. It is submitted that it is an essential requirement for the landlord to prove before he successfully claims the ejectment of the tenant that the tenant had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause and he did not occupy another residential building in the urban area concerned. It is submitted that the landlord was required to mention in the ejectment petition quite clearly that he is not occupying any residential building in the urban area concerned and he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause. It is, however, clear that landlord has quite clearly stated that he has got no other accommodation in Ambala City for his own use and occupation and has also not vacated any accommodation within the said urban area of Ambala City after the commencement of the Act. 9. Tenants defence is that the landlord got residential house No. 8366 comprising two rooms etc. 9. Tenants defence is that the landlord got residential house No. 8366 comprising two rooms etc. from one Ram Parshad situated within the urban area of Ambala City which is sufficient for his residence vacated. It was pleaded by the tenant that he (landlord) has been residing at Chandigarh with his sons as Lal Chand is all alone as his wife died long ago and there will be no body to look after him at Ambala City. I think, Rent Controller was justified in granting him leave to contest this petition. So, this revision fails and is dismissed. Tenant will pay all arrears of rent to the landlord, which have become accrued so far on or before 31.10.2000 before the Rent Controller. Tenant will finish up his defence within three months of the day after he enters his defence, failing which his defence shall be deemed to have been struck off. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the successor court of Miss Neena Chaudhary, Rent Controller, Ambala on 13.10.2000.