was stated that Section 13-B of the Act was not applicable. However, the petitioner sought permission to contest the petition on the ground summons were not sent him as per the prescribed provisions of Section 18-A(2) of the Act and that title of the respondent was also disputed. It was further submitted that the respondent is a permanent resident of Canada and was residing there with his family members and had no intention to return to India. It was also submitted that the respondent was already occupying property No.507, Raikot Road, Mandi Mullanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. He was also having another commercial property at Village Mullanpur, Ludhiana and immovable property at Muzafar Nagar, U.P. Thus, requirement of respondent was not bona fide. The respondent had asked the petitioner to purchase the demised property for 50 lacs or to vacate the same by taking 10 lacs. He had received rent @ `400/- per month from him upto 31.7.2009 but thereafter, refused the accept the same. It was reiterated that the respondent does not require the property in dispute bonafidely and was not covered under the definition of ‘NRI’ as envisaged under Section 2(dd) of the Act. It was further submitted that there were various triable issues in the present petition and thus, permission be granted to contest the same. Respondent filed reply to the aforesaid application for leave to contest denying the averments.
