Rent Disputes In Punjab / Chandigarh

1. Meaning of NRI under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act:

“A” a citizen of USA born in holding American passport is the owner of the property situated a city “X”. The property was under the occupation of “B” as tenant. “A” filed eviction petition for ejectment of “B” from the tenanted premises as “A” required the property for his own residence when ever he visited India. In the ejectment petition “B” sought leave to contest the petition taking the plea that “A” is not an NRI as he is an American citizen holding an American passport. It has been held by the Court Rent Controller that the expression NRI cannot be confined to only those who are holding Indian passport and continue to be Indian citizens. The definition of NRI as per the Act infact embraces all those categories of Indians living abroad whether citizens or non citizens, whether born in India or abroad, whether carrying Indian or foreign passport.
As per section 2(dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act am NRI means a person of Indian origin, who is either permanently or temporarily settled outside India in either case-

For or on taking up employment outside India. or

For carrying on a business or a vocation outside India. or

For any other purpose, in such circumstances, as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for a uncertain period.

2. Eviction Petition filed through power of attorney:

“A” an NRI living in Germany gave special power of attorney to his maternal cousin “B” to file an ejectment petition on his behalf for vacation of premises located at city “X” under the tenancy of “Z”. On putting up appearance before the Hon’ble court “Z” took up a plea that ejectment petition as it is not maintainable because “A” has not come to India for filing of the petition. It was held by the Hon’ble Rent Controller that it is not necessary that an NRI should first come to India and then file the ejectment petition. The said petition could be filed through power of attorney while the NRI is not in India at the stage of filing of petition. Further it was observed that it is not expected that NRI would first come to India, live in a rented accommodation or in hotels during the pendency of his ejectment petition and then after succeeding in ejecting the tenant he would shift to his property. If such an interpretation is followed then probably no NRI landlord could ever succeed in getting the evection order passed.

3. Getting the property vacated for dependants:

“A” a citizen of U.K. was living in Birmingham with his wife and two daughters. “D” daughter of got admission in city “X” for MBBS and as such she required staying in India for considerable long time. “A” owned a house in city “X” which was under the tenancy of “Z”. In an ejectment petition filed by “Z” took up the following Pleas.

That the house is owned by “A” and not “D” and as such house cannot be got vacated for necessity of “D”.
That an NRI should come to India permanently to India for his own use.

It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under the Act an NRI can also claim ejectment from the premises for the purpose of any other person who is dependant on him and is ordinarily living with him, which makes it clear that though an NRI resides permanently in other country he could get could get the accommodation vacated for the need of his dependent who ordinarily lives with him. It was further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no substance in the submission made by the tenant that the words “return to India” under the Act denote return to India permanently.

4. Presumption of bonafide requirement:

“A” a person of Indian origin acquired Canadian citizenship and returned to India accompanied by his old aged wife and was shuttling between India and Canada in search of shelter and settlement in the evening of his life so as to peacefully pass the balance of his life and breathe his last in his own house which was the only property that he had built of his own by investing his earnings. In these circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court found the requirement of the landlord to be bonafide. Further it was observed that as long as there is element of need and the requirement is bonafide than the ejectment of the tenant on that ground should be ordered.

5. Owning more than one property in the same jurisdiction:

“A” a citizen of U.K. owned a house in city “X” which was under the tenancy of “B”. “A” filed a petition for ejectment of “B” from tenanted premises after returning to India while staying in his flat located within the jurisdiction of the court. It was contented by the tenant that “A” is holding as owner and is in possession of another residential accommodation situated within the same urban area and as such he is not liable to be evicted. It was held by the Hon’ble Rent Controller that ownership or possession of other suitable accommodation in the same area is no bar on a NRI to get one building of his choice vacated under the Act.

6. Owning more than one property in the same jurisdiction:

“A” a citizen of USA owned property consisting of eight adjoining shops in City “X” which were under the tenancy of different tenants. “A” filed a petition for ejectment of tenants from all the shops for expansion of his business in India. “B” one of the tenants raised a contention that “A” does not require all the eight shops for the above said purpose and getting possession of two shops would serve his purpose. It was held by the Hon’ble Rent Controller that an NRI can recover the possession of one entire building under the Act. Once it is claimed by an NRI that he requires for his own use, the objection that a portion of the building is sufficient for his requirement is of no consequence. He would still be entitled to the possession of one whole building.

7. NRI landlord co-owner of the property:

“A” a citizen of U.K. co-owned a house in city “X” with “B” an Indian citizen which was under the tenancy of “C”. “A” filed an ejectment petition against “C” for getting his house vacated. In the petition “C” took up a plea that “A” being only a co-owner of the house and not the exclusive owner of the property cannot file the present petition under the special status of being an NRI. It was held by the Hon’ble Rent Controller that an NRI co-owner can file a petition for ejectment of the tenant.
In another case “A” a citizen of U.K. co-owned a house in city “X” with “B” an Indian citizen which was under the tenancy of “C”. “A” filed an ejectment petition against “C” for getting his house vacated. In the petition “C” took up a plea that “A” being only a co-owner of the house and not the exclusive owner of the property cannot seek evection of the tenant from whole of the building and can seek evection only from such portion of the property to the proportion it is owned by the NRI landlord. It was held by the Hon’ble Rent Controller that till such time the property is actually partitioned by meats and bounds, co-owner owns every part and bit of joint property along with others and can seek the evection of tenant from whole building.

8. Filing of another ejectment petition:

“A” a citizen of UAE owned a house in city “X” which was under the tenancy of “B”. “B” was in arrears of rent for four months. “A” filed a regular ejectment petition on the ground of non payment of rent. Later on “A” filed another ejectment petition under the special status of being an NRI. “B” raised a contention that “A” cannot file a second ejectment petition as same is barred under the provisions of law and sought leave to contest the petition on this ground. It was held by the Hon’ble Rent Controller that another regular ejectment petition qua the same property is not a ground for grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition on the ground the requirement of the land lord is not genuine or bonafide.

9. Presumption of bonafide requirement:

“A” a citizen of UAE owned a house in city “X” which was under the tenancy of “B”. “A” filed an ejectment petition for ejectment of “B” on the ground of requirement of the house for his personal use. “B” sought leave to contest on the plea that the landlord had permanently settled abroad and he wanted to sell property at lucrative price and his need is bonafide. It was held by the Hon’ble Rent Controller that Presumption of bona fide requirement is in favour of landlord. Mere assertion on the part of tenant that requirement of landlord is not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption.

You can send us your query on any kind of rent disputes on query@nrilegalservices.com or click on Send a Query.