JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, J.: (Oral) - This reference to a larger Bench has been necessitated on account on the divergent views taken by two learned Single Judges of this Court in M.R.F Limited and another versus S. Major Singh Purewal [2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1917] : 2009 (7) RCR 624 and Paramjit Singh Bara Versus Joginder Singh and another with regard to the consequences that would enumerate in law following the decision of Rent Controller to refuse leave to a tenant to denied an application filed by a landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short “the Act”) for eviction of the tenant. To appreciate the issues involved, it will be necessary for the Court to specifically notice the provisions of Section 13-B and Section 18-A of the Act, which are extracted below: “13-B (1) Right to recover immediate possession of residential building or scheduled building and/or non­residential building to accede to Non-resident Indian­ (1) Where an owner is a Non-Resident Indian and returns to India and the residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, as the case may, be let out by him or her, is or required for his or her use, or for the use of anyone ordinary living with and dependent on him or her, he or she, may apply to the Controller for immediate possession of such building or buildings, as the case may be:-­ Provided that a right to apply in respect of such a building under this section, shall be available only after a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner of such a building and shall be available. Only once during the life time of such an owner. (2) Where the owner referred to in sub-section (1), has left out more than one residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, it shall be open to him or her to make an application under that sub­ section in respect of only one residential building or one scheduled building and/or one non-residential building, each chosen by him or her. (2) Where the owner referred to in sub-section (1), has left out more than one residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, it shall be open to him or her to make an application under that sub­ section in respect of only one residential building or one scheduled building and/or one non-residential building, each chosen by him or her. (3) Where an owner recovers possession of a building under this section, he or she shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or let it out before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building, failing which the evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored the possession of the said building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.” “18-A Special procedure for disposal of applications under Section [13-A or Section 13-B] ­ (1) Every application under [Section 13-A or Section 13-B] shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section. (2) After an application under [Section 13-A or 13-B] is received, the Controller shall issue summons for service on the tenant in the form specified in Schedule II. (3) (a)the summons issued under sub-section (2) shall be served on the tenant as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of Order V of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Controller shall in addition direct that a copy of the summons be also simultaneously sent by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and that another copy of the summons be affixed at some conspicuous part of the building in respect whereof the application under [Section 13-A or Section 13-B] has been made. (b) When an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent has refused to take delivery of the registered article and an endorsement is made by a process serve r to the effect that a copy of the summons has been affixed as directed by the Controller on a conspicuous part of building and the Controller after such enquiry as he deems fit, is satisfied about the correctness of the endorsement, he may declare that there, has been a valid service of the summons on the tenant. (4) The tenant on whom the service of summons has been declared to have been validly made under sub-section (3) shall have no right to contest the prayer for eviction from the [residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building], as the case may be, unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to context the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided, an in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the specified landlord or, as the case may be the widow, widower, child, grandchild or the widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord [for the owner, who is a non-resident, Indian] 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 of the tenant. (5) The Controller may give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the specified landlord or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord [or the owner, who is a non­residential Indian] from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the [residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building], as the case may be, under [Section 13-A or Section 13-B]. (6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing on a date not later than one month from the date on which the leave granted to the tenant to contest and shall hear the application from day to day till the hearing is concluded and application decided. (7) Notwithstanding anything obtaining contained in this Act, the Controller shall while holding an inquiry in a proceeding to which this section applies including the recording of evidence, follow the practice and procedure of a Court of small Causes. (8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any [residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building, as the case may be], made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section. Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. (9) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction under [Section 13-A or Section 13-B] shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications by the Controller. “ 2. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions of the Act would go to show that the legislature in its wisdom thought it is necessary to engraft provisions for expeditious disposal of petitions for eviction filed by Non-residential landlord. Under Section 13-B, leave to defend, has to be sought by a tenant and only upon such leave being granted, it would be open for the tenant to contest the claim of the landlord with regard to his requirement of the tenanted premises. Once leave is refused, Section 18-A (4) introduces a deeming provision by which the claim of the landlord with regard to the need for the premises is to be presumed. 3. Apart from the specific provisions of the Act, reproduced above, particularly those contained in sub-section 4 of Section 18-A, the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Versus Monish Saini, [2005(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 561 (SC)] : AIR 2006 Supreme Court 59 had occasion to deal with the very same provisions of the Act. 3. Apart from the specific provisions of the Act, reproduced above, particularly those contained in sub-section 4 of Section 18-A, the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Versus Monish Saini, [2005(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 561 (SC)] : AIR 2006 Supreme Court 59 had occasion to deal with the very same provisions of the Act. After an elaborate discussion, which is available in the text of the judgment, the Apex Court came to a conclusion that the provisions of Section 13-B would require the tenant to bring on record evidence of a very strong character to rebut the legal presumption that is inbuilt in Section 18-A of the Act with regard to the need of the N.R.I. landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. Only upon such convincing evidence being laid before the Rent Controller, leave to defend can be granted, failing which, obviously, the legal presumption with regard to the need of the landlord would continue to hold the field. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us an order of the Apex Court dated 19.01.2009, passed in Civil Appeal No. 347 of 2009 titled as Kamal Raj Bansal Versus Rajpal Singh in which the Apex Court, according to the learned counsel, has taken the view that even after rejection of the leave to defend, the landlord would be obliged to prove his case. Another judgment of the Apex Court in Modula India Versus Kamakshya Singh Deo, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 162 has also been placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the N.R.I. landlord would have still to prove his case after leave to defend is refused to the tenant. The order dated 19.01.2009 in Kamal Raj Bansal (supra), in our considered view, does not erode the efficacy of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa’s case (supra) inasmuch as neither the decision in Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) has been referred to in the said order nor the detailed reason for the conclusion reached is available in the order of the Court. In so far as the decision in Modula India’s case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court in the said case was dealing with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which do not contain provisions pari materia with Section 13-B and 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Moreover, in Modula India (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the defence of the defendant-tenant was struck off. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the decision in Modula India’s case (supra) does not detract from the principles of law laid down in Baldev Singh Bajwa’s case (supra). 5. The above discussions would lead us to conclusion that in a situation where under Section 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. Having answered the question referred in the manner indicated above, we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for a decision on merits. —————