SATNAM SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION is against the order directing eviction of the tenant in favour of the landlord who had applied under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The tenant had obtained leave to defend originally contending that the landlord was living away at Canada and having immovable property at Canada. Later, he filed a written statement specifically denying that the landlord was an NRI within the definition of Section 2 (dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and that he required the premises bona fide for his occupation since it was admitted by the landlord that he had yet another portion of property where he was running the business. The Rent Controller rejected the contention of the tenant and upheld the claim for eviction.

(2.) THE primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the landlord did not fulfill the requirements of the definition of Non-resident Indian since the landlord has no intention to settle down permanently outside India. According to him, a person who merely goes in and out of India and visits his son outside India but who has no intention to settle outside India could admit him of the Non-resident Indian status. Learned counsel for the petitioner would lay emphasis on Section 2(dd) (c) under which the landlord claims the status that a person settled outside India "for any other purpose" shall be a person who has a definite intention to stay outside for an uncertain period would require a clear intention to stay outside India and would not apply to a person, who is only residing in India and who has also been contesting for election in India. The expression "uncertain period", occurring in the Section, according to him, shall have to be understood in the context of how the amendment permitting a Non-resident Indian to apply for eviction by a special procedure brought through the Punjab Act 9 of 2001 introducing Section 13-B to the statute book. Reading the statement of objects and reasons for introduction of the amendment, learned counsel points out that the State Legislature was enacting the provision, responding to the representations of NRIs, who had spent long years of their life abroad but did not find the conditions congenial in their own countries, on their return, either to settle down or take up any business. Learned counsel would read these objects as guiding the legislative intent that a person who is otherwise residing permanently in India and who goes in and out of the country cannot claim such a status to obtain the benefit of the law.

(3.) LEARNED counsel wants to point out to the circumstances that the landlord had admitted in his evidence that he had returned to India six months prior to the filing of the petition and on reading that the petition itself had been filed only on 23.05.2002, it was pointed out that if his initial contentions were accepted, it would almost seem like that he had gone out of India and returned even within a period of six months to present the petition and therefore, even his length of stay abroad could not have been for a period of six months. He would so read the provision that a person such as the landlord, who has all his interests only in India and who has been only residing here in India, doing his business would never have any intention to stay outside India permanently. The problem arises by reading the definition clause itself disjointedly. The Section does not state anywhere that the intention to stay outside India shall be for a long period. In fact, the Section talks about an intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. The expression is flexible enough to even accommodate instances of persons, who happen to stay outside India for a short period, if only it is uncertain. The length of stay is not the criterion but it is the intention that has to be looked into. Here, the fact that the landlord has obtained a permanent resident status at Canada that assumes significance. Without an intent to stay outside India, it will be well-nigh impossible to obtain such a permanent resident status. Although the permanent resident cards that had been filed into Court was stated to be valid till 2008, the learned counsel for the respondent quickly points out in response to an argument from the counsel for the petitioner that status was also extended upto 2013. However, what is important for our consideration is that on the date when the petition was filed and when the proceedings were pending, the landlord was granted a permanent resident status, which was valid at the time when the proceedings were taken up by the Court and the order was passed. Under the circumstances, I reject the contention of the revision petitioner that the landlord does not fulfill the status of a Non-resident Indian.