the counsel for the respondent by pointing out that even in the petition for seeking for grant of leave, there was no specific reference to the fact that the letting had been done in favour of a private limited company and not to the individual and such a contention could not have been raised either at the time of arguments or in the revision. As regards the contention that a non-residential premise could not be vacated for the residential need of the landlord, learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that Section 13-B of the Act is sweeping and comprehensive in its language that a landlord could seek eviction either for residential or non-residential need regardless of how the property is put in to use by the tenant. The third contention is that the petitioner-landlord, who had not let the premises to a tenant cannot apply under Section 13-B was pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that the purchase was of the year 1998 and the amendment incorporating Section 13-B itself was passed subsequently under Punjab Act 9 of 2001 dated 31.05.2001. He also refers to a decision of this Court in Ravinder Pal Mohindra Vs. Gurbachan Singh and others 2006 (2) RCR (Rent) 211 that even a petitioner, who is a co-owner and who had acquired a right from the original landlord, could maintain a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. As regards the last contention regarding change in character of the property held by the tenant, learned counsel's reply was that the tenant himself did not set up any change in character from that of a tenant as such, but only pleaded a case of an agreement of purchase in the name of his wife.
