extension of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 131B and 2(dd) of the Rent Act, as extended to UT Chandigarh, is also pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court; and once the petitioner1tenant has raised such an issued by making a specific averment in the application for grant of leave to defend, the Rent Controller ought to have granted the prayer for leave to defend as the petitioner has raised a triable issue before the Rent Controller and it is a settled law that if a triable issue is raised, leave to defend has to be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Rent Controller, Chandigarh has failed to appreciate the fact that the need of the respondent1landlady is not bonafide, as all the upper floors, i.e. first, second and third floor, of the building in question are admittedly lying vacant and are in possession of the respondent1landlady and she could have definitely started some business in these upper floors in case she wanted to do so; whereas the respondent1landlady has hired a Property Dealer to let out the aforesaid upper floors of which she was in vacant possession. Even from the facts disclosed in the application for leave to defend, it has been clearly established that under the garb of eviction petition, the respondent1landlady wants to enhance the rent manifold, and thus, in the present case the need of the respondent1landlady cannot be held to be genuine and it is a clear case of additional accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised an issue submitting that the lease agreement is still subsisting, and therefore, the petition under Section 131B of the Rent Act was not maintainable.
