Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. The question involved in this revision petition is as to "whether a person of Indian origin, who acquires the citizenship of another country, ceases to be a Non Resident Indian".

2. The tenant has challenged the order of eviction dated 10.06.2010 before this Court. Though it was not appealable, yet he filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority which was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability on 30.115010.

3. The landlord filed a petition under Section I3-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in order to seek eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the ground and first floors of the showroom SCF Old No.132/6 (New No.684), Kesho Ram Complex Ekta Market, Burail, U.T, Chandigarh on the ground that it is required for use and occupation of her son.

4. The tenant filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act which was dismissed on 10.06.2010. He challenged the said order before this Court, however, on the same day i.e. 10.06.2010, the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction which was initially assailed by way of appeal by the tenant and is now being challenged before this Court in the present revision petition. The sole grievance of the tenant as projected in this case is that since the landlord has obtained citizenship of the United States of America [for short "USA"] as she has got a passport w.e.f. 24.04.2007 to 23.04.2012, therefore, she is ceased to be a NRI. To support his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has referred to Section 20A of the Representation of People Act, 1950 [for short "the Act of 1950"], which has come into being by virtue of Section 2 of the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 2010. It is argued that once the landlord has become a citizen of another country, she has lost the status of NRI and is not entitled to file eviction petition in terms of Section 13-B of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that NRI is defined in Section 2(dd) of the Act which does talk of citizenship of a person of Indian origin.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The sole argument of the petitioner is based upon Section 20A of the Act of 1950 and in order to appreciate his submission, Section 20A of the Act of 1950 needs to be reproduced which reads as under:-

"20A.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every citizen of lndia,- (a) whose name is not included in the electoral roll;

(b) who has not acquired the citizenship of any other country; and

(c) who is absenting from his place of ordinary residence in India owing to his employment, education, or otherwise outside India (whether temporarily or not), shall be entitled to have his name registered in the electoral roll in the constituency in which his place of residence in India as mentioned in his passport is located.

(2) The time within which the name of persons referred to in sub-section (1) shall be registered in the electoral roll and the manner and procedure for registering of a person in the electoral roll under subsection (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) Every person registered under this section shall, if otherwise eligible to exercise his franchise, be allowed to vote at an election in the constituency."

7. A close look of this provision would show that it deals with the right of an Indian who is absenting from the place of his ordinary residence in India owing to his employment, education, or otherwise living outside India to have his name registered in the electoral roll in the constituency in which his place of residence in India as mentioned in his passport is located or if his name is already included in the electoral roll or he has not acquired the citizenship of any other country. This provision has no bearing on the definition of Non Resident Indian which is specifically defined in Section 2(dd) of the Act