Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Two pleas have been raised for setting aside the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar. It has been urged as under:- a) That even after purchase of the property though Non Resident Indian- landlord had become the owner but he has not let out the premises. Therefore, he cannot be termed as landlord qua the tenant under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act); b) That since the rent note contained a clause of arbitration, therefore, learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction. 2. I have stated these grounds on opening note because the evidence and the contentions raised before the Court below negate these grounds. It is not disputed that premises were purchased by the landlord vide sale deed dated 9.2.1998 Ex.P2. It is also not disputed that landlord had written letter Ex.PX to the tenants informing them that he had purchased the property in dispute wherein a request was also made that rent be not paid to the previous landlord. This letter had been written by the landlord on 4.8.1998. This fact was reported by the Inspector, PUNSUP, an employee of tenant-petitioner to his higher authorities vide letter Ex.PY. Learned Rent Controller held that documents Ex.PX, PY & PZ establish relationship of landlord and tenant. 3. On a pointed question, asked by this Court whether the rent has been paid or not, it has been stated by Mr. Sandhawalia that earlier the landlord had brought an eviction petition on the ground of nonpayment of rent and in the same proceedings, rent was tendered, meaning thereby relationship of landlord was accepted. It is too late in the day now to dispute that the premises has not been let out by the landlord once in earlier proceedings he was accepted to be landlord. Even in earlier proceedings, status of landlord was not disputed. 4. To fortify his second submission that since there is a provision in the rent note that Arbitrator can be appointed, Mr. Sandhawalia placed reliance upon Khosla Sports Industries (Regd.) v. Har Mohinder Bhatia (2008-2) Punjab Law Reporter 12 (Delhi Section) to contend that where the Arbitrator has to be appointed as per rent note, the proceedings can be determined under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and jurisdiction of Rent Controller is ousted. Sandhawalia placed reliance upon Khosla Sports Industries (Regd.) v. Har Mohinder Bhatia (2008-2) Punjab Law Reporter 12 (Delhi Section) to contend that where the Arbitrator has to be appointed as per rent note, the proceedings can be determined under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and jurisdiction of Rent Controller is ousted. A bare reading of the judgment relied will reject the arguments raised. The Court held that whether from the nature of agreement, it is to be determined whether document is a rent agreement or commission agreement, the same can be determined by the Arbitrator. Therefore, the analogy raised is not applicable to the facts of the case. 5. Having dealt with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, a brief look at the facts is also necessary. 6. Santokh Singh son of Hazara Singh, landlord, purchased the Shop No. 86 situated at New Grain Market, Jalandhar, vide a registered sale deed dated 9/10.2.1998. It was not disputed that he is having a Non Resident Indian status. His purchase being more than five years old, he is entitled to invoke Section 13 A of the Act and, therefore, he had fled an eviction petition to this effect. 7. The tenants was granted leave to defend. In the written statement filed to the eviction petition, the averments made in the eviction petition were denied and it was stated that the landlord has not given his date and place of birth. 8. Issues have been framed. 9. Relying upon various documents, the Court held that the landlord is Non Resident Indian as he has stepped into witness box as PW.1 and tendered into evidence copy of his passport Ex.P3. 10. Since the Court has found the landlord to be Non Resident Indian, it has rightly ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner. I have perused the findings recorded by learned Rent Controller. Except the two arguments raised, Mr. Sandhawalia has advanced no other argument. Therefore, I find no merit in the present revision petition as there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Rent Controller. 11. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.