Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ld. Senior Counsel further submits that even the claim of the respondent that he is NRI is doubtful as a perusal of his passport (Annexure P-

2) shows that place of birth of the respondent has been mentioned therein as 'Mulewalkhera'. It is submitted that it is nowhere stated in the passport that said Mulewalkhera is situated in India, and it is very much possible that said place Mulewalkhera is situated in Pakistan. It is submitted that for the respondent to be considered as NRI as defined u/s 2(dd) of the Act, the respondent has to be person of Indian origin, however, this fact has not been established on record in the present case. It is submitted that this objection of the petitioner has been duly noted by the ld. Rent Controller in para 5 of the impugned order, however, ld. Rent Controller has moved on the presumption that Mulewalkhera is in India. It is submitted that this presumption on the part of the Rent Controller is baseless and without foundation, and vitiates the impugned order.

CR 8324/2015 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:073584

2. Non-Resident Indian:

It is submitted by Ld. Senior Counsel that the term 'Non-

Resident Indian' has been defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act. It is submitted that in the Eviction petition (Annexure P-1) it is unambiguously stated that the respondent is an NRI. To attest this fact, the passport of the respondent is also attached, which shows him to be a British citizen. In this regard, ld. Senior Counsel refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal V. Swaran Kaur Law Finder Doc. Id # 64511; which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra). It is submitted that in the case of Ram Krishan Grover V. Union of India bearing Civil Appeal No. 8597 of 2019, also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra).

In rebuttal, it is submitted by the ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 2(dd) of the Act, it is necessary that the respondent be of Indian origin. However, in the present case a perusal of the rent petition shows that it has nowhere been mentioned therein that the respondent is of Indian origin. It is submitted that admittedly, respondent holds a British passport, however, no presumption can be drawn that Mulewalkhera is in India. It is further submitted that even a perusal of the sale deed shows that there is no whisper therein that the petitioner is a tenant with the respondent. It is reiterated that the sale deed by way of which respondent has claimed ownership of the demised premises is a fraudulent document not executed in accordance with law which fact could only have been proved by the petitioner during trial. It is further submitted that respondent is required to return to India and in fact, petitioner is not required to pay mesne profits/ damages as the same are due only from a tenant.

A bare perusal of the above provision indicates that 'NRI' is a 'person of Indian origin', who 'settles outside India' either 'permanently or temporarily' to pursue his 'employment/ vocation'. In the present case, the petitioner has doubted the Indian origins of the respondent as, his passport does not state that birthplace of the respondent 'Mulewalkhera' is in India. In my view, this submission on behalf of the petitioner holds no merit as there is nothing on record to show that Mulewalkhera does not fall within India. On the CR 8324/2015 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:073584 contrary, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that when searched on Search Engine Google, Mulewalkhera is shown to be "a village in Shahkot in Jalandhar district of Punjab State, India. It is located 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) from Shahkot, 20 kilometres (12 mi) from Nakodar, 43 kilometres (27 mi) from district headquarter Jalandhar and 174 kilometres (108 mi) from state capital Chandigarh". It is therefore, clear that the respondent is of Indian origin, as required under Section 2(dd) of the Act; and thus, it cannot be said that respondent is not an NRI. Therefore, ejectment petition filed by the respondent u/s 13B of the Act is maintainable.