It is a settled law that the expression NRI cannot be confined to only those who are holding Indian passport and continue to be Indian citizens. The definition of NRI as per the Act infact 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.

As per section 2(dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act am NRI 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 a vocation outside India. or

• For any other purpose, in such circumstances, as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for a uncertain period.

As per FEMA an NRI means a person who has gone out of India or who stays outside India for the purpose of employment or carrying on business or vocation outside India or any other circumstances which indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period.

 

2. Eviction Petition filed through power of attorney:

 

It is again a settled law that it is not necessary that an NRI should first come to India and then file the ejectment petition. The said petition could be filed through power of attorney while the NRI is not in India at the stage of filing of petition. Further it was observed that it is not expected that NRI would first come to India,

live in a rented accommodation or in hotels during the pendency of his ejectment petition and then after succeeding in ejecting the tenant he would shift to his property. If such an interpretation is followed then probably no NRI landlord could ever succeed in getting the evection order passed.

 

3. Getting the property vacated for dependants:

 

It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that under the Act an NRI can also claim ejectment from the premises for the purpose of any other person who is dependant on him and is ordinarily living with him, which makes it clear that though an NRI resides permanently in other country he could get could get the accommodation vacated for the need of his dependent who ordinarily lives with him. It was further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no substance in the submission made by the tenant that the words “return to India” under the Act denote return to India permanently.

 

4. Presumption of bonafide requirement:

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also observed that as long as there is element of need and the requirement is bonafide then the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT should be ordered in favor of the

NRI.

 

5. Owning more than one property in the same jurisdiction:

 

It is again a settled law now that the ownership or possession of other suitable accommodation in the same area by the NRI is no bar to get one building of his choice vacated under the Act.

 

6. Owning more than one property in the same jurisdiction:

 

It is  again settled principle of law that an NRI can recover the possession of one entire building under the Act.Once it is claimed by an NRI that he requires for his own use, the objection that a portion of the building is sufficient for his requirement is of no consequence. He would still be entitled to the possession of one whole building.

 

7. NRI landlord co-owner of the property:

 

It is well established law that an NRI who is a co-owner of a certain property can file a petition for ejectment of the tenant. The law further lays down that till such time the property is actually partitioned by meets and bounds, co-owner owns every part and bit of joint property along with others and can seek the eviction of tenant from whole building.

 

8. Filing of another ejectment petition:

 

The law clearly states that another regular ejectment petition qua the same property is not a ground for grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition on the ground the requirement of the land lord is not genuine or bonafide.

 

9. Presumption of bonafide requirement:

 

The Courts have held time and time again that the Presumption of bona fide requirement is in favour of landlord. Mere assertion on the part of tenant that requirement of landlord is not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption.

 

You can send us your query on any kind of rent disputes on query@gciglobal.org or click on Send a Query.