MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who is faced with an order of ejectment in summary proceedings invoked by the landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 from a shop premises in Patiala, is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) THE contention of the landlord had been that he was born in erstwhile undivided India at Rawalpindi and later he had shifted himself to U.K. where he has been living for several years. He had averred in the petition that being of Indian origin, he is an NRI and he was making preparation to come back to India in the twilight years of his life. According to him, the property was to be used along with few other shops nearby to construct a shopping-cum-residential complex. The tenant had disputed the status of the petitioner as an NRI and had also contended that the landlord had actually obtained eviction of another premises but he was not putting it to any use. There was no bona fides on his part to seek for eviction of the premises in his occupation. He had also contended that he had taken possession of the property only from the petitioner's father Amrik Singh and later he had come to know that Amrik Singh had gifted the property to Sri Guru Granth Sahib installed at Panchayat Gurudwara, Ghas Mandi, Patiala and that the petitioner himself was not entitled to maintain the petition for eviction.

(3.) THE finding of the landlord is assailed before this Court by pointing out that Section 13-B of the Act provided for eviction only on the ground that the landlord returning to India but the petitioner had not stated anywhere that he had to return to India but had merely arrived in India before the filing of the petition and at the time of giving evidence, he had himself no intention of coming back to India. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Act only contemplated the requirement of the accommodation for running of business/residence and a contemplated future action for demolition of the building and for erection of a new complex was not good enough ground for ejectment. According to him, even the residential portion attached to the shop was vacant but the landlord was not himself occupying the same. Even in his evidence, it was only brought out that he was residing at the residence of his power of attorney whenever he visited India. The requirement was, therefore, not bona fide. As regards the status of the person as NRI entitled to maintain the petition, there could be no doubt that what the relevant Section requires is the status of the person as a Non-Resident Indian, returning to India. A Non- Resident Indian has been defined under Section 2 (d) (d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act "as a person to be of Indian origin who is either permanently or temporarily settled outside India; in either case - (a) for or on taking up employment outside India or (b) for carrying on a business or vocation outside India or (c) for any other purpose; in such circumstances, as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period." Landlord's status as a person of Indian origin had never been denied anywhere but the contest was on the fact that the petitioner had not stated anywhere that he was returning to India and that the petitioner had stated that he was arriving in India. The expression used by the landlord was an obvious euphemism and the Rent Controller had correctly adverted to the issue as one of distinction without a difference and found the maintainability of the petition in favour of the landlord.