Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Jasbir Kaur Sandhu alias Jasbero Kaur, who is a Non-Resident India, has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the Order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara, whereby the respondent-tenant has been granted leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the petitioner under Section 13-B of the Act. 2. In this case, the premises in question, which is a residential building, was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1992 vide registered sale deed dated 5.11.1992. The said premises is under the tenancy of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question under Section 13-B of the Act. In the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is a Non Resident Indian and requires the demised premises for her personal use and occupation as she has no other residential house/building except the one in dispute in the area of Municipal Committee, Phagwara. It has been further stated that she intends to settle in India. It has also been stated that the petitioner is a widow and is having two adult children and she wants to perform their marriage in her native place. 3. The respondent-tenant filed an application for grant of leave to contest the aforesaid petition. In the application, he has taken the following grounds: (i) that the petitioner landlady has not filed the present petition with bona fide intention; (ii) that she or her family members do not require the demised premises for their personal use and occupation; (iii) that she wants ejectment of the respondent tenant from the demised premises with object to sell the property and get lucrative amount and then go back to foreign country where she is settled permanently; (iv) that she is a Non Resident Indian having foreign nationality and citizenship, therefore, she cannot come back to India without getting visa and they cannot live permanently, in India beyond the period of visa. (v) that she is having a residential house at Model Town, Phagwara, and there are many other properties in her occupation; (vi) that she is not owner of the demised premises; (vii) that she has already filed ejectment application under Section -13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondent, which is still pending; and (viii) that she is not a Non Resident Indian as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act. it is pertinent to mention here that in the application only the aforesaid grounds have been stated but no material or documents establishing the aforesaid alleged facts, were annexed with the application. 4. The Rent Controller after hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusing the material placed by them, granted leave to the respondent tenant to contest the ejectment petition while observing as under: Petitioner also has relied upon pronouncement 2003(2) R.C.R. 407 (P&H) in which our own Hon ble High Court has laid down the requirement pre-requisite for a petition under Section 13-B of the Rent Act and while relying upon this petition it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that required ingredients are available in the current petition and therefore, respondent has no legs to stand and therefore, application under consideration be declined. On the other hand respondent has relied upon a pronouncement of Hon ble Apex Court cited as 2001(1) R.C.R. 33 (S.C.) wherein Hon ble Apex Court has envisaged and has held in its wisdom that believing on assertions of parties in the affidavits containing assertions and counter assertions may not afford safe and acceptable evidence to arrive at an affirmative conclusion unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that facts disclosed in the application of respondent/tenant for leave to defend were unreasonable or untenable as are the facts in the current petition and petitioner is a N.R.I. Permanently settled abroad having her family also. She intends to settle down in India permanently. Respondent has also claimed that petitioner also has filed another petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act, 1949 against him qua same property. These circumstances therefore require evidence before Court can reach to a conclusion about bona fide and genuine ground of petitioner as claimed in the petition. She intends to settle down in India permanently. Respondent has also claimed that petitioner also has filed another petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act, 1949 against him qua same property. These circumstances therefore require evidence before Court can reach to a conclusion about bona fide and genuine ground of petitioner as claimed in the petition. The photo copy of referred rent note furnished on file by respondent shows that name of owner of demised premises given in it is one Ajit Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh. Petitioner has failed to controvert this aspect. Therefore, it would require evidence before petitioner can prove on record that she is owner/landlord of the demised premises. These circumstances therefore, require that application under consideration be allowed and respondent be permitted to contest the petition to help in reaching to a just conclusion. Resultantly this application is allowed. 5. From the aforesaid order, it appears that primarily the leave to contest the ejectment application was granted so as to reach to a conclusion about bona fide and genuine requirement of NRI-landlord i.e. the petitioner, because it has been alleged by the respondent tenant that the petitioner intends to sell the premises on lucrative price, and for that purpose she has appointed one Gogna, a property dealer as her general attorney. Secondly, it is held that the petitioner is also required to prove that she is owner/landlady of the demised premises as the tenant has placed on record photo-copy of the rent note showing the name of the owner of the premises as one Ajit Kaur. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that in this case the Rent Controller has wrongly granted leave to contest the ejectment application to the respondent on the aforesaid grounds. The Hon ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, J.T. 2005(12) S.C. 442 has held that the legislative intent for setting up of a special procedure for NRI landlords is obvious which has been deliberately designed making distinction between the ordinary landlords and special category of landlords. The controllers power to give leave to contest the application filed under Section 13-B is restricted by the condition that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. The controllers power to give leave to contest the application filed under Section 13-B is restricted by the condition that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. It is needless to say that in the summary proceedings the tenants right to contest the application would be restricted to the parameters of Section 13B. He cannot widen the scope of his defence by relying on any other facts which do not fall within the parameters Under Section 13B, the NRI landlord is entitled for eviction if he requires the suit accommodation for his or her use or the use of the dependent, ordinarily living with him or her. For getting an ejectment under Section 13B, a NRI-landlord is required to prove that: (i) he is a NRI; (ii) that he has returned to India permanently or for the temporary period; (iii) requirement of the accommodation by him or his dependent is genuine and; (iv) he is the owner of the property for the last five years before the institution of the proceedings for ejectment before the Controller. A tenants right to defend the claim of the landlord under Section 13B for ejectment would arise if the tenant could be able to show that the landlord in the proceeding is not NRI landlord; that he is not the owner thereof or that his ownership is not for the required period of five years before the institution of proceedings; that NRI landlord has already got eviction of one building under this provision; and that the landlords requirement is not bona fide. It has been further held that there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona fide. The said protection is subject to tenants rights to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. It has been further held that in the proceedings taken up under Section 13B by the NRI landlords for ejectment of the tenant, the Court shall presume that landlords need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide, but the tenant can prove it to be not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. 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 all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the application for grant of leave to contest the ejectment application, 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. It was further held that the allegations made by the NRI landlord for his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide unless rebutted by the tenant by placing cogent and material facts and evidence in support thereof at the stage of leave to contest the ejectment. 7. It has also been held in that judgment that it is not necessary for the NRI-Landlord to permanently return to India either for the purpose of his residence or for non-residential purpose. To be a Non-Resident India, it is sufficient that a person of Indian origin establishes that he has permanently or temporarily settled outside India for his business or on account of his employment, or for any other purpose which would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. Therefore, any person who has gone out of India and temporarily settled there for the purpose of undertaking certain course or degree of university would not be a NRI because his stay could not be said to be for an uncertain period. A person to be an NRI, first should be of an Indian origin. All that is required under Section 13B is that a NRI should return to India and claim the premises for his/her use or for the use of any dependent ordinarily living with him. There is no requirement that he has permanently settle in India on his return or he has returned to India with an intention to permanently settle in India. A NRI may require the accommodation for expansion of his business which he is carrying on in other country or requires the accommodation for his temporary stay. There is no requirement that he has permanently settle in India on his return or he has returned to India with an intention to permanently settle in India. A NRI may require the accommodation for expansion of his business which he is carrying on in other country or requires the accommodation for his temporary stay. Under Section 13B, a NRI can also claim ejectment of the tenant from the premises for the purposes of any other person who is dependent on him and is ordinarily living with him. In this case, the petitioner-landlady has placed on record the sale deed dated 5.111992 vide which she has purchased the property in question. The sale deed clearly establishes that she is owner of the property in question for the last five years before the institution of proceedings for ejectment under Section 13B of the Act. Merely because the tenant has placed on record the rent note showing one Ajit Kaur as owner of the demised premises is not sufficient to controvert that the petitioner is not the owner of the demised premises. The position would have been otherwise if the tenant places on record the subsequent sale deed to the property showing that the same has been sold by the petitioner to some other person. Therefore, in my opinion, on the basis of the photocopy of the aforesaid rent note, leave to contest the ejectment application cannot be granted to the respondent tenant. Another ground on which leave has been granted is that the personal requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and genuine as it has been stated that the petitioner has permanently settled abroad with her family and she intends to sell this property; it is not certain that she would permanently settle in India or not after the ejectment of the respondent; and that another application has also been filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act against the tenant qua the same property. In my opinion, these allegations are not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption of genuineness in favour of the petitioner-landlady. In my opinion, these allegations are not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption of genuineness in favour of the petitioner-landlady. In Baldev Singh Bajwas case (supra), it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court that mere assertion on the part of the tenant that the requirement of the landlord is not sufficient would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption by placing the cogent and material facts and evidence in this regard. I find that merely on the ground that the petitioner has filed another application under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent qua the same property and the allegations that she actually intends to sell the property on lucrative price without there being any material or documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the respondent tenant can be permitted to contest the ejectment application on the ground that the requirement of the landlady is not genuine or bona fide. Thus, in my opinion, the Rent Controller has committed grave illegality while granting leave to contest the ejectment application to the respondent-tenant. Hence, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara is set aside, and the Rent Controller is directed to proceed further with the case in accordance with law.