and Investment after getting it vacated from M/s United Tiny Savings and Investment, rent of M/s Sharma Travels was enhanced to Rs.1325/- from Rs.1000/-. It is further argued that if there had been any actual need of the landlord, the tenanted portion of M/s United Tiny Savings and Investment could have not been given to M/s Sharma Travels in tenancy after getting it vacated from M/s United Tiny Savings and Investment. The second argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for revisionist(s) is that landlord/respondent never let out the property in question and it was in the tenancy of the tenants prior to the purchase of the building by the landlord, hence, Section 13-B of the Act can not be invoked by the landlord/respondent and Section 13-B of the Act can be invoked by that NRI who himself has let out the building; Third argument advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist(s) is that in 1996, landlord had filed an eviction petition on the ground of his need which was dismissed on merit on 28.11.2000, hence, present application under Section 13-B is not maintainable and is barred by res judicata. The fourth argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist(s) is that landlord has absolutely no intention to shift to India, he is the casual visitor, hence, the requirement of Section 13-B on the ground that he has returned into India, is not fulfilled.
