JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)-The present revision petition has been filed against the order of learned Rent Controller, Jagraon, whereby he accepted the eviction petition of landlord that he, being a Non Resident Indian, require the premises for his own use and occupation. 2. The order passed by learned Rent Controller has been assailed on the following grounds:- a) That in the rent petition, ground of personal necessity has been wrongly stated. b) That in the petition for ejectment, four grounds of ejectment have been taken and under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the landlord could only take one ground of personal necessity as other grounds can only be raised in eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act. c) That only photocopy of the permanent residency card has been placed, therefore, it is not proved that the landlord is a Non Resident Indian. d) That reply to the application for leave to defend the petition was filed through attorney. e) That there was a civil suit pending and an application under Section 12 of the Act has been moved by the petitioner for repair of roof. I have perused the order of learned Rent Controller. 4. The arguments raised above, when examined, cannot stand judicial scrutiny. It has been specifically stated by the landlord in the eviction petition that he intend to come back to India and start his business. Therefore, there was no necessity to give all the minute details. It is also not required that the landlord should file project report of the business which he intends to start. 5. Order of learned Rent Controller specifically state that eviction of the tenant has been granted on the ground of personal necessity, therefore, other grounds though taken in the eviction petition, have not been taken into consideration for ejectment. Therefore, they stood waived off. 6. It is not disputed that the landlord is residing in Canada and he has given his address of Canada and relied upon photocopy of permanent residency card also. No contrary evidence has come in the application for leave to defend to dislodge the same. Simple denial will not obliterate permanent residency card. Therefore, they stood waived off. 6. It is not disputed that the landlord is residing in Canada and he has given his address of Canada and relied upon photocopy of permanent residency card also. No contrary evidence has come in the application for leave to defend to dislodge the same. Simple denial will not obliterate permanent residency card. Since the application has been filed by the tenant, the landlord filed reply to the application for leave to defend through his attorney, it is not expected that till case is decided landlord should stay in India. No fault can be found with the same. 7. Pendency of the proceedings and application for repairing the roof show that even though the Non Resident Indian landlord had taken a ground that the demised premises have become unfit for human habitation, same is required by the landlord for personal necessity so that he can get the same repaired also. 8. Therefore, there is no merit in the present revision petition and hence the same is dismissed. 9. On the prayer made by Mr. Aggarwal, two months time is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. ---------------------