The judgment establishes the criteria for NRI-landlords to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act and emphasizes the heavy burden on tenants to rebut the presumption of the landlord's genuine and bonafide requirement.

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) -(1). This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.5138 and 5139 of 2009 as common question of law and facts are involved in both the cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Revision No.5138 of 2009.

(2). The petitioners in both the revision petitions are the tenants under the same NRI landlord and have been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide the impugned eviction orders dated 30.07.2009 passed in the eviction petitions preferred by the respondent-NRI/landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

(3). The NRI-landlord respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the Act, inter alia, alleging that he is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI); he is permanently settled and resides in USA, though possess the passport issued by United Republic of Tanzania. He averred that the demised premises comprising a building situated in the area of Mohalla Kishanpura, District Jalandhar, was admittedly owned by his grandfather late Amar Singh who during his lifetime executed a registered Will dated 07.07.1972 in favour of the father and uncle of the respondent-landlord, namely, Surinder Singh and Sucha Singh, respectively. The father and the uncle of the respondent-landlord, thereafter, filed a suit for declaration on the basis of the registered Will dated 07.07.1972, which was decreed on 21.01.1977 and in terms thereof, the portion shown in red colour in the site plan fell to the share his father, namely, Surinder Singh. The respondent’s father Surinder Singh passed away on 26.06.1988, whereas, his mother Smt. Jasbir Kaur also died on 24.12.1998. The respondent having inherited the subject property became its owner after the death of his parents.

(4). The respondent further alleged that the petitioners were inducted as tenants in a part of the demised premises, comprising a shop, on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, which his father had been receiving upto October, 1976. The respondent-landlord further averred that he requires the demised premises for his own bona fide personal necessity, for his own use and occupation as he wants to return to India and start business and that he has no other suitable accommodation available nor he has ever taken benefit of Section 13-B of the Act in respect of other premises.

(5). Upon notice, the petitioner-tenants moved an application for leave to contest, inter alia, questioning the locus standi of the respondent-landlord to initiate the eviction proceedings; they denied his status as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) as he was born in Dodoma, Tanzania and is a permanent resident of Tanzania; that there are several other properties owned by the respondent-landlord in Jalandhar and other places. Therefore, there is no personal need; execution of the Will dated 07.07.1972 by the grandfather of the respondent was also disputed. Similarly, the respondent’s ownership was also denied.

(6). Leave to contest was granted and based upon their pleadings, the Rent Controller, Jalandhar framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner is Non-Resident Indian and is entitled to possession of property by way of ejectment? OPP

2. Whether this petition is not maintainable? OPR

3. Relief.

(7). Both the parties led their respective evidence and on appraisal thereof findings against all the issues have been returned by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, in favour of the respondent-landlord culminating into the impugned eviction order.

(8). The provisions like Section 2(dd), Section 13-B and the amended Section 18-A of the Act as incorporated vide the Amendment Act IX of 2001, whereby, the NRI-landlord has been held entitled to immediate possession of a residential or scheduled or non-residential building by seeking eviction of his tenant through summary procedure, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa versus Monish Saini, (2005) (4) R.C