INDERJIT SHARMA Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the order of eviction rendered by the Rent Controller in a petition filed by an NRI under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The contention of the landlord found favour with the Rent Controller, who upheld the bona fides of his contention and directed eviction.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner adopts essentially three strands of arguments : (i) the landlord is not an NRI entitled to invoke provisions of Section 13-B; (ii) he had not established his ownership in relation to the property, which is relevant for consideration under Section 13-B and (iii) the bona fides of requirement of the landlord had not been established. Each one of this contentions is sought to be defended in reasonable detail by learned counsel for the landlord.

(3.) THE issue relating to the NRI status itself does not appear to be a very serious one that has any major obstacle for the landlord. Even without reference to the copy of the passport, It is brought out in evidence that the birth certificate showed that the landlord was born in Singapore, he had studied there and had served the Singapore Army as a citizen of that country and relieved from the Army only in the year 1999. The certificate of service in the Army and his permanent residence status at Singapore have also been filed in Court and considered by the Rent Controller. According to the landlord, he returned to India on 25.06.2000 and he fulfills the definition of Section 2 (dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which defines an NRI to be a person settled either permanently or temporarily outside India for taking up employment outside India or for carrying on a business or a vocation outside India or for any other purpose. If he had been not doing any other business, the fact that he was born in Singapore and served the Army as a citizen of that country would allow him to invoke the residuary clause contained in Section 2(dd) (c) that a person who was residing for any other purpose could still be an NRI, if he had been a person of Indian origin. It was brought out in his evidence that his father was a person of Indian origin but had migrated to Singapore and later returned to India. A son of a person of Indian origin would also be a person of Indian origin and entitled to claim the status as such. The contention on behalf of the tenant that the landlord was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 13-B is, therefore, rejected.