NRI and Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act

According to section 13B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Non-Resident Indians/NRI have right to recover possession of a residential building or even non-residential building. This section is applicable only when the owner is a non-resident Indian. When such a non-resident Indian returns to India and he requires for his own use or for the use of someone who is dependent on him a residential or non-residential building which has been let out on rent by him, such NRI can apply through his lawyer in Chandigarh to the rent controller so that he can have immediate possession of such building.

However there is a “provisio” to section 13B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. According to this exception, a non-resident Indian can apply under this section only after a period of five years after which he became owner of such a building . Further such non-resident Indian can make this application only funds during his lifetime. Further, subsection 2 clarifies that if there are several residential or non-residential buildings owned by such non-resident Indian, then he can make an application under section 13B for only one of the many buildings. Subsection 3 clarifies that where an non-resident Indian owner has got possession of a building, then he cannot transfer or select before the expiry of five years of taking possession. If he does so, the tenant who has been evicted by the rent controller can seek an order that the possession of the set building should be restored to him.

Therefore rent lawyers in Chandigarh advise clients that section 13B of the act gives sight of a judgement to a special kind of landlord that is a non-resident Indian who is the owner of the set premises. Best landlord tenant disputes lawyers in Chandigarh file applications on behalf of landlords after giving him advice that he can make such an application only funds during his lifetime. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that non-resident Indian would include any person who is either himself of Indian region or his parents or grandparents were of Indian origin. Further either of them should have settled outside India either permanently or temporarily. The settlement may be for any reason like employment are carrying on business. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the NRI – landlord need not return to India permanently to seek eviction of his tenant in Chandigarh/Punjab.

Suppose, a non-resident Indian in Canada, America/USA, United Kingdom/UK, Australia or New Zealand files a case in India/Chandigarh on the grounds that he personally requires the property of which he is seeking eviction, Punjab and Hannah High Court has held that the courts shall presume that the need mentioned by the NRI – landlord’s genuine need. It’s for the tenant to prove that the requirement mentioned by the non-resident Indian – landlord is not genuine.

Property disputes lawyers in Chandigarh have suggested clients in Chandigarh, Punjab and Haryana that NRI/landlord can even seek eviction of his tenant under section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act if he is only a co-owner or joint owner.

Further High Court lawyers in Chandigarh have also successfully argued that even if a non-resident Indian landlord has another accommodation of which he is owner in possession, even then he has right invoke this section once in his lifetime for only one building of his choice.

Such a non-resident Indian landlord has right to affect not only one but even more than one tenants in a “single” building of his choice.

In one of the cases in which lawyers in Simranjeet Law Associates were appearing in a case on behalf of landlord under section 13B , they successfully argued before Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh that the landlord could file a petition under section 13B even if an earlier petition under section 13 of the act was pending. In that case it was argued by best rent lawyers in Chandigarh that their clients could not be stopped from availing the property provided by the newly added section. This was so because section 13 days with ordinary law of judgement and not a special case provided by section 13B.

District court Chandigarh has also held in one of the cases filed by us that the non-resident landlord need not be a sole owner to initiate proceedings under section 13B. Moreover it has also been held that consent of co-owner is not at all necessary for filing petition under this section.