Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling boosts NRIs' right to reclaim property, clears eviction path for landowners

Indian Express

a day ago

In a major relief to Non-Resident Indian property owners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court last month upheld an eviction order in favour of an NRI based in England, in a long-pending property dispute with her tenants in Amritsar.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain on May 3. Dismissing a clutch of petitions filed by tenants, Popular Shuttle Company and Amrik Singh, the High Court backed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, allowing Harbans Kaur to reclaim her property in East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar.
The tenants had challenged the eviction on several grounds, including maintainability, partial eviction, and alleged misuse of procedural law. But the court rejected each contention, reinforcing that NRIs are entitled to reclaim property under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, provided they satisfy the ownership and bona fide need conditions.
Harbans Kaur had filed for eviction on the grounds that she and her husband, who planned to retire from an engineering firm in the UK and start a Latha machine workshop, required the premises for personal and business use.
The tenants, represented by Senior Advocate B R Mahajan and a legal team comprising Prateek Mahajan, Nikita Goel and Harita Dhanda, questioned whether Kaur could file a second petition after withdrawing an earlier one. They cited provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Order XXIII Rule 1), arguing that this barred the fresh eviction plea.
But the court disagreed, citing settled law. 'Reliance placed by Mr Mahajan on Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is misconceived and cannot be accepted,' Justice Jain ruled. He noted that a Rent Controller, unlike a civil court, does not have the authority to refuse a fresh petition from the landlady.
The court also held that Kaur's petition against multiple tenants was valid. 'Section 13-B does not restrict the right of a landlady to the number of tenants, but it restricts her right to seek eviction qua number of buildings,' the judge said. He referred to the Delhi High Court's ruling in Atma Ram Properties Pvt Ltd v. Prem Nath Motors Pvt Ltd to support the maintainability of a single petition involving common legal and factual questions.
The tenants' argument of 'partial eviction' — claiming only parts of the property were lawfully rented — was also dismissed. The court backed the Rent Controller's factual findings that written rent agreements existed for specific portions, and oral tenancy claims for the rest could not be accepted.
On the nature of use, the tenants argued that a non-residential property could not be reclaimed for residential needs. The court found this unconvincing. 'The landlady sought ejectment… pleading residential as well as non-residential need,' said Justice Jain, adding there was no legal bar on such dual-purpose use under the Act.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed all connected matters, reaffirming the eviction order. 'In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed,' the judge said.
The ruling reaffirms the statutory right of NRIs to reclaim property for personal use, without being caught in prolonged litigation. Under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, an NRI landowner can seek eviction once during their lifetime, provided they have owned the property for at least five years and can prove genuine need.