An Indian citizen who had acquired foreign citizenship is not disentitled to enjoy residence in his own property in India when he chooses to return to India.

( 1 ) THE main grievance against the impugned order is that the respondent, who is admittedly owner and landlord of the premises in dispute, had taken British Citizenship and on his return to India has not surrendered that citizenship and applied for Indian citizenship, as such it could not be presumed that he is likely to acquire the premises for his personal bonaide requirement since he is not likely to stay in India for a long time. The other contention against the impugned order is that the respondent had reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to him for residence inasmuch as he owns another property i. e. half of 15/16westpatelnagar, New Delhi.

( 2 ) I have gone through the impugned order and find that both the points have been duly dealt with by the Trial Court. Counsel has not been able to point out any provision of law whereby an Indian who had acquired foreign citizenship is disentitled to enjoy residence in his own property in India when he chooses to return to India. The possport of the respondent was brought in the Court which shows that ever since 1988 he has been staying in India and even in 1991 his visa was extended upto the year 1994.

( 3 ) THESE proceedings for eviction of the respondent were originally instituted in the year 1982 and ever since that time the respondent has been denied enjoyment of his property on account of the petitioner adopting one or other tactic. On the second point, photocopy of the sale deed relating to the property No. 15/16 west Patel Nagar, New Delhi has been filed in the. Court by the respondent which clearly shows that it was the respondent s daughter s mother-in-law Smt. Radha Bai Malhotra, who originally owned the entire property No. 15/16 West Fatal Nagar and had sold 50% thereof to one Mr. J. P. Khanna, who was resident of Plot No. 1 New Market West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It is submitted that Mr. J. P. Khanna was some other person who is not even known to the respondent and not the respondent himself.

( 4 ) ON both these counts, I am not in agreement with the petitioner and I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Trial Court. As such the revision petition is dismissed. The stay earlier granted shall stand vacated.

( 5 ) AT this stage, Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of the operation of this order The respondent shall, however, not take steps to dispossess the petitioner from the property in dispute for a month from today.