JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Grant of leave to defend to the respondent-tenant pursuant to an application made by him under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act by the petitioner-landlord, is under challenge in this revision petition preferred by the landlord. 2. It is claimed that under a lease deed of 27.10.2010, the respondent was incepted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- for a period of 9 years with stipulation of increase in 15% of rent after 3 years. The petitioner claiming to be landlord of the premises after purchase of the same by his father Tara Singh Ghuman (since deceased) vide sale deed dated 3.4.1973, had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Act claiming himself to be a Non-Resident Indian (for short, NRI) living abroad since 1975 but expressing his decision to come back to India to set up business of home décor in Amritsar in the premises in dispute. 3. The said petition was challenged by the respondent-tenant by way of filing an application under Section 18-A of the Act seeking leave to contest the ejectment petition, wherein following objections were taken: (i) Non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; (ii) Lease by Smt. Gurjit Kaur, mother of the petitioner in favour of the tenant is of 27.10.2010 and was for 9 years; (iii) Existence of arbitration clause in the lease deed makes the ejectment petition under the Act to be not maintainable; (iv) Demised premises are in joint ownership of the petitioner, his brother and also sister and on non-joining of all of them, the ejectment petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties; and, (v) Status of the petitioner as NRI was also denied. 4. This application under Section 18-A of the tenant filed on 18.5.2012 (Annexure P-3) was contested tooth and nail by the landlord wherein asserting his status as a landlord, his co-ownership is also claimed for more than 5 years. Admissibility of lease deed of 27.10.2010 propounded by the tenant was questioned averring that it is unregistered and that it did not create any right in favour of the respondent-tenant. 5. Admissibility of lease deed of 27.10.2010 propounded by the tenant was questioned averring that it is unregistered and that it did not create any right in favour of the respondent-tenant. 5. Notwithstanding tough resistance of the landlord offered, in grant of leave to defend, to the tenant his application (Annexure P-3) under Section 18-A of the Act was granted vide the impugned order. 6. Plea of the petitioner-landlord is that there is no debatable point between the parties which could have formed foundation for grant of leave to defend to the tenant. It is claimed that the Rent Controller was required to himself decide the points on which any debate on law was called for but just on this score leave to contest could not have been granted. It is claimed that only two questions were there for adjudication before the Rent Controller viz. whether unregistered lease deed of 27.10.2010 was admissible in evidence so as to be of any avail to the tenant and further that an arbitration clause therein was invokable by the tenant or not? It is claimed that rights of the petitioner-landlord have been seriously prejudiced as impugned order has occasioned failure of justice resulting in irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner-landlord. 7. Per contra, stand of the respondent-tenant is that he is well within his rights to get leave to contest the petition under Section 13-B of the Act filed by the petitioner-landlord and has further right to prove that the landlord has no sustainable claim against the tenant. 8. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 9. Before adjudicating rival claims of the parties, it would be appropriate to take stock of the facts about which there is no dispute. 10. The property in dispute was purchased by Tara Singh Ghuman, father of the petitioner-landlord on 3.4.1973. Tara Singh died on 14.1.1978; he is survived by his widow Smt. Gurjit Kaur, two sons viz. Jaswinder Pal Singh and Surinderjit Singh (now petitioner) and one daughter Smt. Rajinder Kaur. On 27.10.2010 Smt. Gurjit Kaur, mother of the petitioner let out the premises in dispute vide written lease deed though the same was unregistered. Tara Singh died on 14.1.1978; he is survived by his widow Smt. Gurjit Kaur, two sons viz. Jaswinder Pal Singh and Surinderjit Singh (now petitioner) and one daughter Smt. Rajinder Kaur. On 27.10.2010 Smt. Gurjit Kaur, mother of the petitioner let out the premises in dispute vide written lease deed though the same was unregistered. In the said lease deed in Clause 11, she had categorically declared that “she is the sole and absolute owner” of the premises and further that “she had the unfettered and unrestricted right to give on lease the use of premises to the lessee”. Clearly enough, she had given the lease of the premises to the tenant holding out herself to be the sole and absolute owner thereof; whether property was purchased earlier by her husband (since deceased) or had been subjected to variations in its ownership later, are matters to which the respondent-tenant is not privy and thus, would require adjudication by the Rent Controller. 11. Claim of the petitioner that her mother had sold out 1/4th share in the property to him and his brother vide a registered sale deed of 10.11.2000 is a transaction unknown to the tenant. Even if such transaction of sale is considered in the interface of attending facts and circumstances, it is yet to be explained by the petitioner as to how her mother Smt. Gurjit Kaur had claimed herself to be absolute owner of the property and why there was no disclosure that after the death of her husband (who was original owner) on 14.1.1978, she had become owner only of 1/4th share and that she had already parted with that share of her by sale in favour of her two sons including the petitioner. 12. Sweeping averments of the petitioner that such lease by her mother Smt. Gurjit Kaur on 27.10.2010 was on his behalf, itself is such a plea which raises triable issue requiring evidence. 13. 12. Sweeping averments of the petitioner that such lease by her mother Smt. Gurjit Kaur on 27.10.2010 was on his behalf, itself is such a plea which raises triable issue requiring evidence. 13. In view of privity of contract established by lease deed of 27.10.2010 between Smt. Gurjit Kaur (mother of the petitioner) and the respondent-tenant, there are following triable issues requiring evidence before the Rent Controller: (i) When Smt. Gurjit Kaur after sale of her 1/4th share in the property on 10.11.2000, interalia, in favour of the petitioner and his brother had left with no right, title or interest in the premises, how she had claimed herself to be the sole and absolute owner of the premises having unfettered and unrestricted right to give the premises on lease to the respondent-tenant?; (ii) Why the fact of her ownership only to the extent of 1/4th share pursuant to death of her husband Tara Singh on 14.1.1978 and of sale of even that 1/4th share on 10.11.2000 in favour of her two sons including the petitioner, was not disclosed in the lease deed?; (iii) If plea of the petitioner that lease was given by his mother Smt. Gurjit Kaur on his behalf is to be considered, then why there is no such recital to this effect in the lease deed?; (iv) Lease deed is of 27.10.2010. It is for 9 years but just after 1½ years, petition for ejectment (Annexure P-2) was preferred on 2.5.2012. Bringing of such ejectment petition within a short span of over 1 year, when the lease of 9 years had been given to the tenant, raises question of bonafides of the petitioner. These facts and circumstances also raise triable issue requiring evidence; (v) Even if it be taken that unregistered document of tenancy of 9 years does not enure for the tenant and gives right of ejectment to the landlord, it cannot be denied that such lease deed can still be read into evidence for collateral purposes such as for defining the relationship between the parties. The petitioner will also have to come clear with regard to bonafides of his claim in filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Act even though tenancy was incepted by Smt. Gurjit Kaur, his mother making bold assertions of her sole and absolute title as also of unfettered powers; and, (vi) As to how the landlord could claim status of an NRI in terms of provisions of Section 2(dd) of the Act when concedingly, he has acquired citizenship of United States of America and holds passport No.472116821 issued by the United States of America to him on 9.6.2010. 14. Smt. Gurjit Kaur transferred her 1/4th share in the property vide sale deed of 10.11.2000 in favour of two sons Jaswinder Pal Singh and petitioner Surinderjit Singh. 15. Smt. Gurjit Kaur (mother of the petitioner) on 27.10.2010 had let out ground floor to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- for a period of 9 years with provision of 15% increase in the rent after every 3 years. Lease deed was unregistered. 16. Section 13-B of the Act is a special provision giving right to NRIs to recover immediate possession of residential building or scheduled building and/or non-residential building. A tenant has a right to contest such petition of the landlord within 15 days of the service of notice in the petition, if the tenant seeks leave to contest the petition and the same is granted to the tenant (to contest the ejectment petition) in terms of Section 18-A of the Act. 17. Counsel for the petitioner-landlord has urged that unregistered document containing clause of tenancy of 9 years does not enure for the benefit of the tenant. Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Ram Sarup (deceased) through LRs Versus Sat Pal Suri 2004(2) RCR (Rent) 183 (P&H) and Aniyan Versus Raveendran 2013(1) RCR (Rent) 317 (Kerala). 18. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has urged that existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is sine qua non for maintainability of the eviction petition under the Act. Support has been sought from Tribhuvanshankar Versus Amrutlal [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 539 : 2014(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1976 (SC)] : (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 788 and Smt. Gian Devi Anand Versus Jeevan Kumar 1985(1) RCR (Rent) 459 (SC). Support has been sought from Tribhuvanshankar Versus Amrutlal [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 539 : 2014(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1976 (SC)] : (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 788 and Smt. Gian Devi Anand Versus Jeevan Kumar 1985(1) RCR (Rent) 459 (SC). All these and earlier issues are triable by the Rent Controller and thus leave to contest the petition was rightly granted to the tenant. 19. By way of passing reference, it may be mentioned that when the tenant is seeking protection of provisions of Section 18-A of the Act in resisting the petition under Section 13-B thereof, then reference to arbitration clause in the lease deed of 27.10.2010 by him is contradictory in terms. Even otherwise, it is by now settled that arbitration clause in any document concerning tenancy rights is of no legal significance. Reference in this regard needs to be made to Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. Vs. Navrang Studio AIR 1981 SC 537 , Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. Versus SBI Home Finance Ltd. & others AIR 2011 SC 2507 and Rakesh Rishi Versus Bakhshish Kaur [2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 762] : (2013-4) PLR 401 (P&H). 20. Even if it be taken that a co-sharer is entitled to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Act in terms of Smt. Bachan Kaur and others Versus Kabal Singh and another [2011(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2786 (DB) : 2012(1) Land L.R. 411] : 2011(1) RCR (Rent) 368 (P&H) and Ravinder Pal Mohindra Versus Gurbachan Singh and others 2006(2) RCR (Rent) 211 (P&H), the earlier mentioned issues even then face the landlord for answer. 21. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.2.2013. Thus, affirming the same, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed. 22. Since the rent petition has already become quite old, the same would be finally decided by the Rent Controller within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, even by conducting day to day proceedings, if required. 23. Nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on merits of the petition pending before the lower court. ---------0.B.S.0------------