JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.10.2011 whereby application moved by the respondent for leave to contest the ejectment petition, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has sought ejectment of the respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The application moved by the respondent for leave to contest was liable to be dismissed as there was no triable issue in the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 4. In the present case, petitioner has sought ejectment of the respondent alleging that he was a Non-Resident Indian and was the owner of the property in question for the last more than five years prior to the filing of the petition and required the same for his own personal use. 5. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, was that Amar Kaur had rented out the property in question to the respondent vide rent note dated 14.5.1990. As per the said rent note, Amar Kaur had claimed herself to be the owner of the demised premises. It was further pleaded in the reply that the date of death of Amar Kaur had not been mentioned by the petitioner in the ejectment petition. Moreover, Amar Kaur had left behind three sons and daughters also. 6. The Apex Court in ‘Rachpal Singh and others vs. Gurmit Kaur and others 2010(1)LAR 254’ has held as under:- “If some triable issues are raised then the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through cross-examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits and other material documents. Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirement and his assertion is required to be tested more so when the status of the respondent has been specifically challenged and also when the landlord-tenant relationship is in question. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the common order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petitions 4096 of 2007 and connected matters dated 28.4.2008.” 7. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the common order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petitions 4096 of 2007 and connected matters dated 28.4.2008.” 7. Thus, in the present case, the case of the petitioner is that he was the sole owner of the property in question for the last more than five years prior to the filing of the petition whereas the case of the respondent was that the property in question was owned by Amar Kaur and had been rented out to the respondent by her vide rent note dated 14.5.1990. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that Amar Kaur had died on 6.10.2010. In these circumstances, triable issues arise in the present case as to when and how the petitioner became the owner of the property in question. In these circumstances, the learned Rent Controller had rightly allowed the application moved by the respondent for leave to contest the ejectment petition. 8. No ground for interference is made out. 9. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————