SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The case has been brought up in urgent hearing and I hasten to pass the under mentioned order on examination of the relevant records placed in the file. The revision is against the order of rejection of leave to defend filed by the respondent-tenant in a petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949. The landlords' contention was inter alia that they were persons of Indian origin but had later migrated to U.K. and spent major part of their life in teaching profession. They have since retired and they want to come back to India to set up a teaching academy and some business. The contention in defence to seek for leave is that persons who have not acquired Indian citizenship cannot obtain to a Non-resident Indian status. The contention is directly against the definition of "Non-Resident Indian" under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. All that is required under Section 2(dd) is that the person shall be a person of Indian origin, who had either permanently or temporarily settled outside India. It should be in any of the three circumstances delineated under the Section itself, namely (a) that he had taken up employment outside India; or (b) that he was carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or (c) for any other purpose that would indicate his intention to stay outside India for a uncertain period. By this definition, even a person who was permanently settled outside India carrying on a business for taking up employment such as in this case, the petitioners were professional teachers, qualify for status as NRI. The issue of citizenship is wholly irrelevant. The same way, the other contention taken up in the grounds of revision is that the petitioners have been living away from India for a long time and there is no reason for them to return to India in the evening years of their lives. A provision such as Section 13-B under the Act fast tracking certain types of cases is to make possible for persons who have gone out of India to have an incentive to come back to India. The prospect of long drawn litigation could be dampen such a spirit and therefore a statutory recognition of a imminent possibility to secure eviction must be given due effect. If the landlord declares that he requires the premises for his personal occupation and intends to come back to India, unless an oblique motive is seen and there is some ground to suspect the bona fides, there shall be no occasion for a tenant to be granted leave to defend by his own fancy that the landlord is not required to come back to India. Such a decision must verily reside with NRI concerned and cannot be at the bidding of the tenant, who at all times shall have an axe to grind and would not want the landlord to disturb his own peaceful possession. The decision of the Court below is rendered on appreciation of all the relevant factors and I find no reason to assail the order.

(2.) The rejection of the plea for leave to defend was therefore justified and the civil revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Time for eviction is two months.