BALDEV SINGH BAJWA versus MONISH SAINI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 05-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BALDEV SINGH BAJWA 
V. 
MONISH SAINI 
OCTOBER 5, 2005 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act of 1949)-Section 
C 2(dd)-NRI landlord-Return to India-Who is-Held, can be persons who 
have permanently settled outside India need not return permanently to India-
Not necessary to be citizen of lnaia-Further held, persons whose parent, 
grand parents, or great grand parents were born permanently reside in India 
would be an NRI for the purposes of the Act. 
D 
Section 13-B, 18A(5)-Eviction on the ground of requirement of NRI 
landlord-presumption that landlord's need is genuine and bonafide--He/d, 
would not disentile the tenant fi"om proving otherwise-Further held, burden 
lies on tenant to prove all necessary facts on affidavit, mere assertion not 
sufficient. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes-sectipn 13-B-'Required'-Meaning of-Held, 
would mean bonafide requirement-Legislative intent has to be ascertained 
according to plain language. 
Appellant was a tenant of the disputed shop which was leased out to 
him by landlord with the consent of other landlords. The Respondent was 
F born in Delhi and later migrated to United Kingdom for employment and 
settled there. He filed an ejectment petition invoking Section 13-8 of the 
Act of 1949 claiming that the tenant-appellant was bound to surrender 
immediate possession of the disputed shop to him, that he is a Non-Resident 
Indian as per definition under Section 2(dd) of the Act; that he wanted to 
G start business of Transport Goods Carrier in which he had acquired 
sufficient experience. Appellant filed an affidavit seeking leave to contest 
under Section 18-A (5) of the Act of 1949. He contended that the landlord 
holds a Canadian Passport and he was living in U.K. and came to India 
on tourist Visa and, therefore, has not returned to India permanently; that 
H 
26 
J 
BAL DEV SINGH BAJWA v. MON I SH SAINI 
27 
~ 
he did not require the shop as he and his family own various shops around A 
the shop in dispute and had been letting out the same from time to time; 
that a very big shop of the respondent-landlord and his family remained 
... 
vacant and possessed by them; that the respondent could not be regarded 
as an NRI as there is no likelihood of his return to India for the purpose 
of doing business; and that the ejectment petition under Section 13-B of B 
the Act of 1949 was merely to seek ejectment from the shop in dispute 
without there being bona fide need. The Controller declined the prayer of 
the tenant to contest and allowed the petition filed by the respondent under 
•• 
Section 13-B of the Act of 1949 and directed tenant to handover possession 
-
of the shop in dispute to the landlord. The Controller held the landlord 
to be a special category of landlord, i.e. NRI. Controller held that there c 
was no need to ascertain the intention of the landlord regarding the 
settlement in India as specific penal provision has been incorporated in 
.: 
the Act to counter that. He further held that the availability of other 
buildings or accommodation could not be a ground to deny an NRI the 
possession of any building of his choice. The Controller further observed D 
that the tenant in his affidavit had not cared to specify the properties by 
giving number, location or area of the properties owned by the landlord 
-~ 
in the same locality. The Controller also held that dismissal of the previous 
J 
proceedings for ejectment would not be sufficient to non-suit the landlord. 
i 
Appellant preferred revision petition to the High Court of Punjab 
_, 
E 
and Haryana. Single Judge dismissed the revision petition. It was held that 
the expression 'NRI' under Section 2(dd) of the Act of 1949 had to be given 
its ordinary meaning and a person of Indian origin living abroad, whether 
settled permanently or temporarily, would be an NRI within the meaning 
of Section 2(dd) of the Act of 1949. He also pointed out that the expression 
'returns to India' used in Section 13-B of the Act of 1949 would not F 
necessarily mean that he must return permanently or he must file a 
petition after he had returned to India. It was held that in the context of 
the provisions of the Act of 1949 applicable to NRI landlord, no leave to 
contest can be grated on the ground that the landlord did not require the 
suit accommodation. The question of bona fide need not be gone into in 
G 
these proceedings. 
Before this Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.