C.R. No. 7356 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7356 of 2010 Date of Decision: 07.12.2010 Harmail Singh .... Petitioner Versus Pritam Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Tenant-petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act assailing the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Phagwara whereby learned Rent Controller has allowed the eviction petition filed by landlord-respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 2. The brief facts inter alia are that respondent-landlord has moved an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act on the ground that landlord is NRI having Passport No. E 3955737 and is owner of the property for more than 5 years prior to the filing of the eviction petition; landlord and his son Paul Singly who is also Non- resident Indian have planned to settle in India permanently and set up their business in the shop in question. 3. Petitioner-tenant has moved an application seeking leave C.R. No. 7356 of 2010 2 to defend under Section 18-A(4) of the Act contending that landlord has acquired permanent citizenship of U.S.A., hence, can not be said to be Non-resident Indian; landlord has intention to sell the property in question on exorbitant price and has absolutely no need to start business in the property in question. It has further been contended in the application seeking leave to defend that landlord is having other shops also and landlord is not the owner of the property in question, hence, petition under Section 13-B is liable to be rejected. 4. Learned Rent Controller has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Sainid, 2005(12) SCC 778. Learned Rent Controller has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal vs. Swaran Kaur, reported in 2003(2) Rent Control Reporter 407. Learned Rent Controller has observed that birth place of the landlord is Kapurthala, hence, landlord for the purpose of Section 13-B is a Non-resident Indian. Learned Rent Controller has also observed that need of the landlord shall be presumed as correct in view of dictum of Apex Court in the matter of Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) and tenant has failed to prove by way of placing material alongwith the application seeking leave that infact landlord need is not genuine. Learned Rent Controller has further observed in the impugned judgment that from the material available on the record landlord has successfully proved that he is the owner of the property in question. Learned Rent Controller has further observed that apprehension of the tenant that landlord will not use the property after getting it vacated for his personal use and occupation and sell the same at exorbitant price is misconceived in view of provision of C.R. No. 7356 of 2010 3 Section 19(2)-B of the Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record and relevant law on the point. 6. In the case of Sohan Lal (supra) it has been held as under:- “The expression 'NRI' used in Section 2 (dd) of the Act has been clearly defined and there is no ambiguity necessity any external aid for interpreting the same. The ordinary meaning of the expression 'NRI' given in Section 2 (dd) of the Act is that a person of Indian Origin – living abroad whether settled permanently or temporarily. The purpose of his living abroad has been amplified either for taking employment outside India or for carrying on business or vocation outside India or for any other purpose as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for uncertain period. Therefore, the definition of expression 'NRI' cannot be confined to only those who are holding Indian Passport and continue to be the Indian citizens. The definition in fact 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. It appears that as long as he is owner of a property in the State of Punjab legislature has intentionally used a wider expression to include large number of NRI.” 7. In the opinion of this Court a person of Indian origin shall be non-resident Indian as defined under Section 2(dd) of the Act, if C.R. No. 7356 of 2010 4 he is residing in foreign country for uncertain period. Acquiring citizenship of foreign country by a person of Indian origin is immaterial. 8. There is no denial or proof on behalf of the tenant- petitioner that he has not taken demised premises on rent from the landlord-respondent while the definite case of the landlord- respondent is that property was let out by him to the tenant (petitioner herein). From the perusal of the record, it transpires that tenant has denied the ownership of the landlord half heartedly. Tenant has failed to prove that who is the owner of the property in dispute, if according to the tenant-landlord is not owner of the property in question. 9. As per dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra) heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that alleged need of the landlord is not bonafide. From the perusal of the record, I am unable to find out any material to deny the bonafide need of the landlord. 10. In the opinion of this Court, landlord has successfully proved that he is NRI and is owner of the property in question for last more than 5 years prior to the filing of the eviction petition and he requires demised premises for establishing business therein after return to India alongwith his son. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to take contrary view to the view taken by learned Rent Controller. 12. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 07.12.2010 JUDGE reena