Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition by the impugned judgement dated 3.9.2004.

Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Himani Sarin, advocate vehemently argued that the landlord in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the eviction petition has stated that he stood retired from service in Kuwait on 30.6.1999 and after his retirement he has come back to India with bag and baggage for taking up permanent residence in India. He further argued that since landlord has returned to India with bag and baggage in 1999 prior to enactment of Section 13-B in the year 2001, hence the landlord cannot be said to be an NRI as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act. He further argued that to attract definition of NRI as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act, a person should be either permanently or temporarily settled outside India on the date Section 13-B of the Act was enacted i.e. on 31.5.2001. It is further contended that landlord has earlier filed one petition under Section 13 of the Act and during the pendency of earlier eviction petition, landlord has filed present petition under Section 13-B of the Act with malafide intention. Mr. Sarin further argued that the landlord is absolutely in no need of the demise premises and he has no intention to reside in India and to occupy the demise premises and he has every intention to transfer the demise property.

xx xx xx xx Return to India could not be read as return to India permanently with an intention to settle in India permanently. If we read the phrase ``return to India'' along with the definition of the ``NRI'' under Section 2(dd) of the Act, it is clear that the special category of landlords NRI could also be a person who has settled permanently outside India. Thus permanent resident outside India being NRI can claim ejectment."

Undisputedly, landlord was in service in Kuwait and he stood retired from service on 30.6.1999 and thereafter, he visited India 2/3 times and then again went to Canada and was staying there with his family as admitted by the tenant in the written statement, hence, in the opinion of this court, the landlord is an NRI. Not only this, from the dictum of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra), it is clear that Section 13-B was enacted keeping in mind the plight of Indian residents intending to return to India after long years abroad did not find conditions congenial in their own country on their return either to settle down or to take up any business. If the object to enact Section 13-B is kept in mind while reading the definition of NRI under Section 2(dd) of the Act, the only interpretation possible is that if an NRI returns to India on or before the enactment of Section 13-B, he is entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act. It is not at all necessity that an NRI should return to India only after the enactment of Section 13-B. In Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 19 has held as under: -