IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4683 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.10.2011 Baldev Parkash -----Petitioner Vs. Hardip Singh -----Respondent and other connected cases being Civil Revision No.3172 of 2011 (O&M) Rajesh Kumar -----Petitioner Vs. Hardip Singh -----Respondent Civil Revision No.4684 of 2011 (O&M) Sanjeev Kumar -----Petitioner Vs. Hardip Singh -----Respondent Civil Revision No.4685 of 2011 (O&M) Manohar Lal Chawla & another -----Petitioners Vs. Hardip Singh -----Respondent Civil Revision No.4686 of 2011 (O&M) Darbari Lal -----Petitioner Vs. Hardip Singh -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? C.R. No.4683 of 2011 Present:- Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (Oral) 1. This judgment shall dispose of five revision petitions i.e. Civil Revision Nos.3172, 4683 to 4686 of 2011, as the same have arisen out of similar facts and common question of law has been raised in all these petitions. However, for convenience sake, the facts are taken from C.R. No.4683 of 2011. 2. The respondent-landlord, who is common in all these petitions, filed petitions under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, “the Act”) for ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises in their respective possession, pleading that he is a Non-Resident Indian having ownership of the rented shops for the last more than five years and the same are required for his own use and occupation. The rented shops are part and parcel of one building fully detailed in the head note of the petitions, which is a composite building and consists of shops on the ground floor. The father of the respondent namely Sohan Singh had purchased the said building vide registered sale deed dated 24.10.1964 along with one Piara Singh. Sohan Singh died on 14.12.1996 leaving behind his sons and daughters including the respondent. Thus, the respondent being a Class-I heir of Sohan Singh became co-owner of the property in question after his death and as such, was owner of the shops in dispute for the last more than five years at the time 2 C.R. No.4683 of 2011 of filing of these petitions. It was further pleaded by him that he is a person of Indian origin. His father was born in India having birth place at Village Kotli Khakhian, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar and mother was born in Village Hadiabad Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The petitioners were liable to be evicted from the shops in dispute as he required these shops for his own use and occupation. He had planned to open a restaurant in the building in question. The building of shops is on the ground floor, which is in the possession of the tenant-petitioners. The respondent had filed separate ejectment petitions against the tenant-petitioners for vacation of the premises in dispute. The respondent wants to settle in India permanently. All the shops are part and parcel of one building. It was further pleaded that he had no other residential or commercial accommodation and has not rented out any such building prior to filing of the ejectment petitions. 3. Upon notice, the petitioners appeared and filed applications seeking permission for leave to contest. It was, inter alia, averred that the petitions were wrong and were not in proper form. The respondent did not fall in the definition of ‘NRI’. He was not a co-owner of the shops in dispute. There was no relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. The respondent has not shifted to India and has concealed material facts. He has failed to show that he required the shops in dispute for his personal use and occupation. 3 C.R. No.4683 of 2011 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, vide impugned orders, all the objections as raised by the petitioners were held not tenable. Resultantly, vide impugned orders, while rejecting the prayer for leave to contest, the eviction of the petitioners was ordered. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant- petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the same have been passed illegally. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent-landlord fulfills all the conditions as envisaged under Section 13-B of the Act and is entitled to vacant possession of the demised premises. In fact, before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any material on the basis of which the findings of the Rent Controller could be challenged. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent cannot be held to be an ‘NRI’ conforming to the provisions of Section 2(dd) of the Act, as he is not an Indian citizen but a citizen of Great Britain and being a foreigner, he does not fall within the definition of ‘NRI’. 6. While dealing with the definition of ‘NRI’, as enumerated in the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 has observed as under:- “Definition of “Non-resident Indian” (NRI) under the Act contemplates that any person who is of an Indian origin, and who has settled either permanently or 4 C.R. No.4683 of 2011 temporarily outside India for taking up employment; or for carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or for any other purpose in such circumstances as would indicate to stay outside India for an uncertain period, would be a Non-Resident Indian. Thus to be a NRI, it is sufficient that a person of an Indian origin establishes that he has permanently or temporarily settled outside India for his business or on account of his employment, or for any other purpose which would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. Therefore, any person who has gone out of India and temporarily settled there for the purposes of undertaking certain course or degree of University would not be a NRI because his stay could not be said to be for an uncertain period. A person to be an NRI, first should be of an Indian origin. The phrase ``Indian Origin'' has not been defined in the Act of 1949. The dictionary and in ordinary parlance phrase ``origin'' refers to persons parentage or ancestry. The person whose parent, grand-parents, or great-grand parents were born in India and permanently resided in India would be an NRI for the purposes of the Act of 1949. It is not necessary that the person should be a citizen of India and shifted to the foreign country or that because he holds foreign passport he would not be NRI.” 7. Further in the judgment in the case of Sohan Lal v. Swaran Kaur 2003(2) Rent Control Reporter 407, it has been observed as under:- “The expression ‘NRI’ used in Section 2(dd) of the Act has been clearly defined and there is no ambiguity 5 C.R. No.4683 of 2011 necessitating 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 up 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 NRIs.” 8. It may also be relevant to refer to the observations of the Rent Controller which reads, thus:- “In view of the above discussion and in the light of above judgments the petitioner clearly comes within the ambit of definition of NRI as defined under Section 2(dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon judgment in case titled as Rachpal Singh and others versus Gurmit Kaur and others reported as 2009(2) Rent Control Reporter 112. It has been laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of 6 C.R. No.4683 of 2011 India in the said judgment that burden is on the landlord to prove this status of NRI. The petitioner has placed on the file a copy of passport No.A1613813 of his mother Nachattar Kaur which has been issued by Republic of India and in the said copy of passport she has been shown to be born at Hadiabad, Kapurthala. Still further a perusal of the copy of death certificate of Sohan Singh father of petitioner shall reveal that he died at Phagwara on 14.12.1996 and the copy of Passport of Sohan Singh shall reveal that he was born at Kotli Khakhian as averred by the petitioner. Thus the petitioner has been clearly shown to be an NRI.” 9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the observations of the Rent Controller, I find no merit in these petitions. 10 Thus, all the petitions are dismissed. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. October 04, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 7