As per case facts, NRI landlord Sat Parkash Ghai filed eviction petitions against tenants Smt. Balbir Kaur and Smt. Radha Rani for two shops, invoking Section 13-B of the 1949 ... Act for bona fide need. The tenants sought leave to contest, claiming the landlord was not a true NRI, had purchased two distinct shops, and that a co-owner brother had a pending eviction petition for a different property. The Rent Controller denied leave to contest. The tenants appealed, arguing these points raised triable issues. The question arose whether two shops purchased separately could be considered one unit under Section 13-B, if an NRI landlord's right is affected by a co-owner's pending eviction for another property, and the necessity for the landlord to disclose other properties or prove permanent return to India. Finally, the High Court found the two shops to be one unit. It held that a co-owner's separate petition does not debar the NRI landlord's right for his solely owned property, disclosure of other properties is not mandated under Section 13-B, and evidence showed the NRI landlord visited India. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Rent Controller's order.