Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The tenants are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 6.4.2004 whereby the application filed by the tenants for granting leave to contest the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") was dismissed and consequently ejectment order was passed in favour of the landlord. 2. The respondent-landlord has sought ejectment on the ground that he is a British citizen and he wants to wind up his affairs in England and intends to come back and settle in India. He has further pleaded that he is the owner of the demised premises since the year 1990 and, thus, he satisfies the condition precedent for seeking eviction of the tenant in a summary manner in terms of Section 13-B of the Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the intention of the landlord to settle permanently in India is seriously disputed and such aspect cannot be decided without granting leave to the petitioners to contest the petition on merits. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 706, to contend that the tenant cannot be thrown out summarily, if prima facie he is able to say that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide or untenable and as such not entitled to obtain an order of eviction. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make out any prima facie case for granting leave to contest the case. As per landlord, he is a British citizen and intends to return to India permanently. The only challenge is that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. 5. In the application for leave to defend, the petitioners have pleaded about the previous proceedings of eviction between the parties and also that the building is neither a residential nor scheduled building and, therefore, the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act. It is also pleaded that the respondent herein is not a specified landlord nor he has pleaded the date, month and year when he approached the petitioners for possession. It is also pleaded that the respondent herein is not a specified landlord nor he has pleaded the date, month and year when he approached the petitioners for possession. It has also been pleaded that the property in question was let out to the petitioners about more than 45 years ago and that the landlord does not require the demised premises as he does not want to shift to India in any manner whatsoever. 6. In Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, Hon ble Supreme Court, while considering the legality and validity of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act, has examined the standard of proof required by the Non-Resident Indian to prove his requirement of the accommodation for which ejectment is asked for. It has been held that a heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact, the tenant will be called upon to give ail the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlords favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine. 7. Keeping in view the said principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, a perusal of the application for leave to contest would show that the said application is bereft of detailed particulars, much less of any documentary evidence to support the plea that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine and bona fide. 8. it may be stated that under Section 13-B(3) of the Act, the owner-landlord is debarred to transfer through sale or in any other manner or even to let out the demised premises before the expiry of period of five years from the date of eviction of "tenant from the said premises. The said fact is a sufficient safeguard against the possible misuse of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act by the landlord in seeking eviction of the tenant. The said fact is a sufficient safeguard against the possible misuse of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act by the landlord in seeking eviction of the tenant. Still further, Section 19(2b) of the Act provides that if any landlord violates the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act, he shall be liable to be prosecuted. 9. In view of the above, I do not find that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller suffers from any patent illegality or material irregularity which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its re-visional jurisdiction. 10. Dismissed. 11. However, the order of ejectment shall not be executed till 31.03.2006.