Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The contention of the petitioner that tenancy was separate and therefore, a composite petition could not have been filed, is not acceptable. There is no rent note to this effect and it is the admitted case of the parties that the premises was let out to Abhay Sood and thereafter the tenancy was let out to Anita Sood and even otherwise, there is no bar to file a composite petition qua two tenancies, more so, when the tenants are closely related. There is evidence that the rent was being paid by Abhay Sood. The plea of the petitioner is thus, without any merit. In so far as the plea that the respondent is not an N.R.I., the same has also to be negated. Section 2(dd) of the Act clearly defines an N.R.I. which reads as under :-

In a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini 2005(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 470, the controversy with regard to N.R.I. has been elaborately dealt with and it was held as under :-

"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 an 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 purpose 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 person's percentage or ancestry. The person whose parent, grant-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. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is to bring the case within the four corners of Sections 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 Sections 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 being NRI can claim ejectment.