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.
As per FEMA an NRI means a person
who has gone out of India or
who stays outside India for
the purpose of employment or
carrying on business or vocation
outside India or any other circumstances
which indicate his intention
to stay outside India for an
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.
|
