The Punjab and Haryana High Court expounded that the NRI landlord was not required to return to India permanently to maintain the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “1949 Act”).
Further, it was ruled that the time of 5 years available to the NRI for seeking possession starts from the date of becoming the owner of the building and only once in a lifetime. Therefore, the pre-requisite is that the NRI has to be the owner of the building.
In the instant case, the Petitioner claimed ownership of the property based on a Will executed by his father. It was observed that the shops were constructed much later and at the time of the execution of the will, these shops were not even in existence. Therefore, it was held that the landlord had no basis to claim ownership based on the will.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner/Landlord being a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), on returning to India filed an application under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, for eviction of the Respondent/Tenant from the shops in question.
It was claimed that Petitioner’s father was the owner of the shops in question. After his father passed away, the Petitioner along with his brothers inherited the estate of their father and became owners. On returning to India, the Petitioner wanted to start his own business and wanted to convert the shops into a big showroom.
The tenant on the other hand disputed the ownership of the father of the Petitioner and questioned the authenticity of the will.
The Rent Controller rejected the ejectment petitions filed by the Petitioner. Hence, the present revision petitions.
Observation of the Court:
The Court expounded that the NRI landlord was not required to return to India permanently to maintain the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949.
Further, it was ruled that the time of 5 years available to the NRI for seeking possession starts from the date of becoming the owner of the building and only once in a lifetime. Therefore, the pre-requisite is that the NRI must be the owner of the building.
In the instant case, the Petitioner claimed ownership of the property based on a Will executed by his father. It was observed that the shops were constructed much later and at the time of the execution of the will, these shops were not even in existence. Therefore, the landlord had no basis to claim ownership based on the will.
It was ruled that the essential prerequisite for the landlord to seek immediate possession of the shops in question by applying under Section 13-B of the Act of 1949, was not established, as his ownership of the shops was not proved.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court did not interfere with the findings of the Rent Controller and accordingly, dismissed the review petitions.
Case Title: Harbinder Singh Manku vs Sanjay Kumar and other connected matters.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Case No: CR NO. 2832 of 2016 (O& M) and other connected matters.
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Uday Goyal
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Mr. Manoj Pundir
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
