CR No.6169 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6169 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.03.2011 Guriqbal Singh and another . . . Petitioners Versus Gurjaib Singh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.B.S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Kharar by which an application filed by the tenant under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking leave to defend the application filed by the landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, has been allowed. In brief, the petitioners filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act alleging therein that they are NRI as petitioner No.1 is living in United States of America (USA) and petitioner No.2 is a resident of England. They had purchased the demised premises in the year 1990 which is now required for their own use and occupation. Notice of the application was issued on the prescribed form. Pursuant thereto, the tenant filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act alleging that the petitioners are not NRIs as neither they have taken any employment outside India nor they are carrying on any business. Reply to the application was filed by the petitioners in which it was reiterated that they are NRIs, who have settled abroad since long. The learned Rent Controller has allowed the application filed under Section 18-A of the Act on the ground that the plea that petitioners are NRIs is to be decided only after taking evidence. It was CR No.6169 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - also observed that there are other controversies, which can only be determined when the evidence is led by the parties. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the present revision petition is filed in which notice of motion was issued and further proceedings before the trial Court were ordered to be stayed on 23.9.2010. Mr.B.S. Kathuria, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/tenant has argued merely on the ground that since the petitioners/landlords have alleged in the eviction petition that they intend to live in India, the eviction petition is not maintainable because mere intention is not sufficient as they have to return to India for the purpose of filing the eviction petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is not necessary that NRI should first come to India with intention to settle permanently before filing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In this regard, he has relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of “Ravinder Pal Mohindra Vs. Gurbachan Singh and others” 2006(2) RCR (Rent) 211, “Surinder Kumar Shori Vs. Shakuntala Devi” 2006(2) RCR (Rent) 373 and “Lakhwinder Kumar Vs. Pavitter Kaur (dead) through LRs” 2010(3) RCR 279 and a judgment of the Supreme Court in “Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini” 2006 AIR (SC) 59. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has not argued that leave to defend is required because the petitioners are not the NRIs rather he has argued that leave to defend cannot be granted because petitioners have only intention to shift to India. He had submitted that NRI landlord had to first come to India for the purpose of filing eviction petition otherwise the same is not maintainable. In the case of Ravinder Pal Mohindra (Supra) it is observed that it is not necessary that NRI should first come to India to settle before filing petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In the case of Surinder Kumar Shori (Supra), it is also held that there is no requirement that NRI should first return to India and then file eviction of tenant. In the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa (Supra) it was held that “Under Section 13-B, a NRI can also claim ejectment of the tenant from the premises for the purposes of any other person who is dependent on him and is CR No.6169 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ordinarily living with him, which makes it clear that although a NRI resides permanently in other country, he could get the accommodation vacated for the need of his dependant who ordinarily lives with him and he intends to come to India, choosing it to be his permanent abode”. Thus, from the above referred judgments, it is clear that it is not necessary that the NRI should first return to India for the purpose of filing petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In view thereof, the present revision petition deserves success and as such the same is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is hereby set aside. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) March 04, 2011 JUDGE Vivek