Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared and filed an application for leave to defend, admitting that he was in occupation of Front Mezzanine portion of SCO No.112-13, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh (adjoining portion of M/s Jeweller Talwar sons) since 1974. The petitioner sought leave to defend the eviction petition on various grounds submitting that the respondent-landlady was residing in United Kingdom for the last more than 50 years and was a British citizen. The respondent-landlady and her son, who is also a British citizen, are having settled business in UK and are earning huge income there as well as rental income from the buildings in India and the agricultural land. The respondent-landlady is a foreign national and the same is not included in the definition of 'Non Resident Indian' because an NRI is a person who is an Indian citizen ordinarily and is residing outside India holding an Indian passport. Since the respondent-landlady is neither an Indian citizen nor she holds an Indian passport, she does not fulfill the basic ingredients of being NRI, and therefore, she would not be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 13-B of the Rent Act. The petitioner further mentioned in the application for leave to defend that such a question on similar facts is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.189 of 2011 and thus, the instant eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable. It is further case of the petitioner that provisions of Section 13-B and Section 2 (dd) of the Rent Act are contrary to the provisions of the Citizenship Act as well as Constitution of India and various Notifications issued by the Government of India; and are liable to be struck-down. The petitioner further raised a ground that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the Notification dated 09.10.2009, vide which Section 13-B of the Rent Act has been extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, is illegal and without jurisdiction; and thus, the extension of the said law as made applicable to the UT Chandigarh itself is bad and therefore, the petition filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady under Section 13-B of the Rent Act is not maintainable. A further ground has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-landlady does not fulfill the requirement of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act. Moreover, the respondent-landlady under the threat of the said provisions has forced the tenants to enhance the rent of the building in question manifold. Even the respondent-landlady has renewed the tenancy, though no written agreement was executed. It has been further submitted that the tenancy in question is contractual, which is in existence and as such the eviction petition is not maintainable during the subsistence of contract/agreement. The petitioner has further submitted in the application for leave to defend that the upper floors of the building in question have already been vacated by the tenants on 30.09.2009 and are still lying vacant; and in case the respondent-landlady desires to use the building in question for her own use and occupation, she would have occupied the upper floors and commenced the business, whereas she has advertised to lease out the upper floors on enhanced rent and thus, requirement of the respondent-landlady was neither bonafide nor genuine and under the garb of eviction petition she is trying to pressurize the petitioner and the other tenants to increase the rent manifold, which is otherwise not permissible under law.

Respondent-landlady filed reply to the aforesaid application for leave to defend, controverting the grounds as raised. In the reply, she submitted that she was an NRI in terms of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act and the pendency of SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not relevant and the judgment rendered in 'Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini' (2005) 12 SCC 778, which has interpreted the definition of NRI contained in the provisions of Section 2(dd) of the Rent Act, has not been stayed. It was also stated in the reply that Sections 13-B and 2(dd) of the Rent Act were rightly extended to the UT Chandigarh vide Notification dated 09.10.2009 and the same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in 'Asha Chawla & others v. Union of India & others' 2011(4) PLR 376. All other averments made in the application were denied and a prayer was made for dismissing the application for leave to defend and evict the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

At this stage it may be useful to refer to the relevant part of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra), which read thus:

"24. Definition of 'Non-resident Indian' (NRI) under the Act contemplates that any person who is of an Indian origin, and who has settled either permanently or temporarily outside India for taking up employment; or for carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or for any other purpose in such circumstances as would indicate to stay outside India for an uncertain period, would be a Non- resident Indian. Thus to be a NRI, it is sufficient that a person of an Indian origin establishes that he has permanently or temporarily settled outside India for his business or on account of his employment, or for any other purpose which would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. Therefore, any person who has gone out of India and temporarily settled there for the purposes of undertaking certain course or degree of University would not be a NRI because his stay could not be said to be for an uncertain period. A person to be an NRI, first should be of an Indian origin. The phrase 'Indian Origin' has not been defined in the Act of 1949. The dictionary and in ordinary parlance phrase 'origin' refers to persons parentage or ancestry. The person whose parent, grand-parents, or great-grand parents were born in India and permanently resided in India would be an NRI for the purposes of the Act of 1949. It is not necessary that the person should be a citizen of India and shifted to the foreign country or that because he holds foreign passport he would not be NRI. In the appeals before us, there is no challenge that the landlords are not the NRIs within the meaning of the Act because they do not have the Indian origin. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants is to bring the case within the four corners of Section 2 (dd) and 13-B of the Act of 1949, it is necessary that NRI has to return to India permanently. We are unable to agree with the interpretation of Section 2(dd) and 13-B sought to be placed by the learned counsel. 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."

At this stage, the judgment in the case of Sohan Lal v. Swaran Kaur 2003(2) Rent Control Reporter 407, be referred to which reads thus:

"The expression 'NRI' used in Section 2(dd) of the Act has been clearly defined and there is no ambiguity necessitating any external aid for interpreting the same. The ordinary meaning of the expression 'NRI' given in Section 2(dd) of the Act is that a person of Indian origin living abroad whether settled permanently or temporarily. The purpose of his living abroad has been amplified either for taking up employment outside India or for carrying on business or vocation outside India or for any other purpose as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for uncertain period. Therefore, the definition of expression 'NRI' cannot be confined to only those who are holding Indian Passport and continue to be the Indian citizens. The definition in fact embraces all those categories of Indians living abroad whether citizens or non-citizens, whether born in India or abroad, whether carrying Indian or foreign passport. It appears that as long as he is owner of a property in the State of Punjab legislature has intentionally used a wider expression to include large number of NRIs."