Special

Rights of NRI
landlords
S. 24(3)
S. 24(3) and 13B of 1949 Act

Application Requirement
Return to Permanent
Owner =NRI to rent of such
india residence
authority building

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 2
2015
Reason / rationale behind s. 24(3)
• "The State Government had been receiving representations from various
N.R.I.s individuals and through their associations highlighting the plight of
Indian residents returning to India after long years abroad. It was
represented that the NRIs having spent long years of their life abroad did not
find conditions congenial in their own country on their return either to settle
down or to take up any business. On account of rigid legal provisions of
existing Rent laws, the NRIs were unable to recover possession of their own
residential building from the tenants. Government having considered the
situation had decided that the existing Rent Legislation viz. East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 should be amended to provide relief to NRIs
to enable them to recover possession of a residential or scheduled building
and/or one non residential building for their own use.”

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 3
2015
Whether these special rights hit by
article 14?
• In Asha Chawla & Others v. Union of India & others, 2011 (2) R.C.R
(Rent) 591 it was held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that
“The classification of Non-resident Indians, as a separate class of
landlords, cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Right to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide need is available to all
landlords...The classification is not shown to be irrational. The same is
intelligible and has rational relationship with the object sought to
be achieved i.e. providing speedy remedy to non-residents in
bonafide need of premises let out to tenants.”

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 4
2015
Who is an NRI?
• According to explanation to S. 24(3)“Non-resident
Indian” means a person of Indian origin, who is either
permanently or temporarily settled outside India in
either case-
• For or on taking up employment outside India; or
• For carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or
• For any other purpose, in such circumstances, as would
indicate his intention to stay outside India for a uncertain
period;

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 5
2015
 Baldev Singh Bajwa
Vs.
Monish Saini, 2005(12) SCC 778
“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.” Sunday, April 26,
Nanditta Batra 6
2015
Whether return to India is on
permanent basis?
• In case decided under 1949 law i.e Baldev Singh Bajwa v.
Monish Saini, AIR 2006 SC 59, SC held that, return to India
could not be read as return to India permanently with an
intention to settle in India permanently.
• This decision was heavily criticized for it enabled NRI’s to
evict teannts even if they had come to India for a short
visit.
• Therefore, the 1995 law has now expressly provided that
the NRI can exercise his special rights only when he
returns to India for a permanent residence. It means that
he should have no intention of going back to the foreign
country
Sunday, April 26,
Nanditta Batra 7
2015
NRI must be OWNER of the building
in question
• This right is available only when the NRI is OWNER of building.
• In Lakhwinder Kumar v. Pavitter Kaur (dead) through L.R’s, 2010
(1) R.C.R ( Rent) 588 petition for eviction by N.R.I who was co-
onwer of premises was filed. Held that the objection that
landlord was not sole owner could not be sustained. N.R.I co-
owner/joint owner can also file for eviction under this section.
• In Ravinder Pal Mohindra v. Gurbachan Singh & others, 2006(2)
R.C.R (Rent) 211 property let by one of the co owners, but not
the NRI landlord himself. Held NRI landlord entitled to evict
tenant, not required that NRI landlord should have himself let
the property. Letting out by the co-owner would be letting out
on behalf of other co-owners.
•

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 8
2015
Buildings with respect to that
application is maintainable:
• Residential or/and non-residential building

• Such a building must BE REQUIRED FOR HIS OR HER USE, OR FOR THE USE OF ANY ONE
ORDINARILY LIVING WITH AND DEPENDENT UPON HIM/HER

• This right is extricable not because of his status of the landlord but because of his need: it has been
held that “No doubt the legislative intent in enacting Section 13-B, is to provide for immediate
possession of the accommodation owned by the NRI but it cannot be assumed that the legislature
wants the NRI landlord/owner, to get the possession of the accommodation from the tenant
even if he does not require it and the need pleaded is proved to be a mere pretext to get the
accommodation vacated. Had that not been the intention of the legislature, the phrase
`required' by the NRI landlord would not have been used in Section 13-B. “ (Baldev Singh’s case)

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 9
2015
Retrospective operation of S. 24(3)
read with S. 75:
• It is an exception to s. 3(a) for S. 24(3) applies even to
the buildings let out before the commencement of
this Act.

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 10
2015
• In Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh & another
2010 (2) R.C.R (Rent) 422, it was held that rights
granted to N.R.I. landlord under Section 13-B are
special rights to get vacant possession at earliest.
These special rights are independent to any other
right given under Section 13 .

Sunday, April 26,

Nanditta Batra 11
2015