Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The last submission made by the counsel is that the landlord was not a NRI since he is having a British passport. The said submission can also not be accepted as it has been held in Sohan Lal Vs. Swaran Kaur 2003(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 407 as under:-

"19. 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.

xxx xxxx xxxx

24. A perusal of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act shows that any person could be registered as citizen of India by the prescribed authority provided that he is not already such citizen by virtue of the provision of the Constitution or any other provisions of the 1955 Act. If such a person is of Indian origin and is ordinarily resident of India and have been so resident for five years before making an application for registration he could also be registered as a citizen. The explanation further provides that an applicant would be considered a person of Indian origin if he or either of his parents was born in undivided India. It thus becomes evident that person of Indian origin is a class apart from the citizens. By no stretch of imagination it could be held that the citizens alone could be the person of Indian origin and could be considered as NRIs within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the Act. The concept of `citizenship' is different than the broader concept of person of Indian origin who are to include **** NRIs. The definition of `Indian origin' as given in the `Card Scheme' is even more broader. It has included in the definition of PIO in clause 2(ii) all those persons as the persons of Indian origin if he or she or either of his parents or grand parents or great grand parents was born in and permanently resident in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 and other territories that became part of India thereafter provided neither was at any time a citizen of any of the countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries as may be specified by the Central Government from time to time.

25. The question as to whether a NRI would include all classes of persons of Indian origin or only specified categories can more appropriately be answered once it is remembered that such a person has to be the owner of the property in order to become eligible to maintain a petition for ejectment of a tenant. Ownership is a concept which consists of bundle of rights. Such as a right of possession; right of enjoying the usufruct of the land and so on. This concept has been incorporated in various provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, it is only that NRI who is a person of Indian origin and is owner of the property under the tenancy of a tenant who has been given the right to initiate ejectment proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act. The NRIs and the persons of Indian origin who have acquired citizenship abroad would either continue to be the owner of the property or would acquire the property lateron by investing in India. Certain **** provisions were made in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for brevity, `the FERA') regulating the acquisition of property by NRIs or by the persons of Indian origin who have acquired citizenship of foreign Nations. Even FERA has now been repealed and replaced by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 liberalising many stringent provisions. Therefore, the NRIs or the persons of Indian origin who acquired citizenship abroad are not debarred to be the owner of the property in India or Punjab. Once a NRI or a person of Indian origin who have acquired citizenship abroad is owner for over five years of the property rented out to a tenant, he would be covered by the definition of NRI given in Section 2(dd) of the Act. Therefore, the definition of NRI being a person of Indian origin does not need to be limited either by referring to the Foreigns Act, 1946 or the Citizenship Act, 1955 or by reference to the Card Scheme. It appears that all the aforementioned statutes have different area of operation than the provisions of Section 13(B) and other cognate provisions incorporated by amendment of 2001. It is well settled that once language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then no external aid should be employed to interpret the provisions of such a statute. In this regard, reliance could be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar's case (supra).