JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) :- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.7.2003, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kurukshetra, by which the respondent has been granted ‘leave to defend’. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed an application for ejectment against the respondent under Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act,1973 (for short,’the Act’) from the demised premises, namely, House No.2015, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra, which was occupied by the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- including water and electricity charges w.e.f. May,1996. The petitioner alleged that he had been working in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited (for short,’the Corporation’) as Accounts Officer and was living in a rented accommodation at Chandigarh. The said Corporation was closed as it had suffered heavy losses and its employees including the petitioner were retrenched on payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notices and were ordered to be paid retiral benefits. The petitioner after having been thrown out of service, filed the ejectment petition within one month from 27.7.2002 on the ground of personal necessity. 3. In this petition, the respondent had filed an application on 17.9.2002 seeking ‘leave to defend’. In that application, it was, interalia, alleged that the petitioner has not retired from the Corporation and has ancestral property, houses and plot etc, but he has not furnished any such list, therefore, the ingredients of personal necessity were not fulfilled. 4. The said application was contested by the petitioner in which he had reiterated that he had retired from service and necessary record has been placed on the file and with regard to his ownership of the other property, the same was denied and alleged that the applicant had to produce the detail of such property, otherwise, the averment should be treated as vague. The said application has been allowed. 5. Aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller, the petitioner had filed this revision petition which was admitted on 23.8.2004 and it was ordered that no final order shall be passed by the Rent Controller till further orders. 6. Opening his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Rent Controller has committed patent error of law in allowing the application for ‘leave to defend’ on the vague assertion made therein. 6. Opening his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Rent Controller has committed patent error of law in allowing the application for ‘leave to defend’ on the vague assertion made therein. It is submitted that although the order had already been placed on record which is dated 1.7.2002 alongwith the application for ejectment showing that he has been retrenched by the Corporation and is no more in service, yet a plea was taken by the respondent that the employees of the Corporation had obtained stay from the High Court and hence the petitioner is very much in service but the stay order was never produced along-with the application nor it was produced during the course of hearing before this Court by the respondent which satisfies the Court about the first ground on which the application was maintained that the petitioner has not retired from service as alleged by him. 7. Secondly, the petitioner has declared that he has no other house except the demised premises but the respondent had claimed that he possesses other ancestral property, houses and plot and should have attached the list with the application. To my mind, it was the duty of the respondent to at least aver specifically in his application about alternative accommodation in possession of the landlord in order to make out a prima facie case before the Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shri B.D.Thapar Vs. Shri Pal Singh (1987-1)The P.L.R. 344, in which it has been held that “The tenant must have given the particulars of the alleged sufficient accommodation with the landlord and the details of the other property alleged to have been vacated by the other tenants and rented out by the landlord. Since no such details were given, the allegations were very vague and on those allegations, no leave as such could be granted”. 8. In the other case of this Court in Parminder Singh Vs. Budh Singh Kochar 1990 (Vol. 18) Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 359, it was held that “Fact that landlord has retired is a good and sufficient ground for ordering ejectment. No necessity to record evidence. Rent Controller need not go into the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation” 9. Budh Singh Kochar 1990 (Vol. 18) Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 359, it was held that “Fact that landlord has retired is a good and sufficient ground for ordering ejectment. No necessity to record evidence. Rent Controller need not go into the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation” 9. The purpose of enacting Section 13-A by the Legislature is that the specified landlord who has retired from his service can ask for accommodation for his own use and may not have to wait for indefinite period to get the same by involving in an unending litigation. For this purpose, the only defence given to the tenant is that he can set up a case before the Rent Controller from which he could prove the falsity in the claim of the landlord in order to seek full fledged trial of the rent petition. Since the application was devoid of any particular, therefore, to my mind, the Rent Controller has committed patent illegality in relying upon the bald assertion of the respondent/applicant while granting permission. Hence, this Civil Revision is allowed and the order of the Rent Controller is set aside with costs. --------------