एनआरआई मकान मालिक की व्यक्तिगत उपयोग की याचिका खारिज, पंजाब‑हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट ने किरायेदार को बख्शा घर

Mr Singh owned a residential property in Jagraon, Punjab that he put on rent when he shifted to Canada. The tenant Mrs Kaur paid him Rs 20,000 per month rent and everything was going fine until one day Singh wanted the property back. Mr Singh wanted to reclaim the property for his personal use during his visits to India and thus asked Mrs Kaur to vacate it. However, she refused to vacate it, thus Singh decided to file a tenant eviction case in court.

After a long courtroom fight, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favour of Mrs Kaur (tenant), rejecting Mr Singhâs plea for her eviction.

Letâs take a closer look at the case and the high court reasoning for ruling the judgement in favour of the tenant.

Mr Singh purchased the property in 2012 and started living in it. In 2020, he rented out the property to Mrs Kaur as he moved to Canada. However, in 2021 Mr Singh had a sudden change of heart and asked Mrs Kaur to evict his property. The reason, as told by Mr Singh to her, was that he needs the property for his personal use as he often faces struggles to find a suitable place to stay whenever he visits India. But Mrs Kaur refused to vacate the property.

Thus on April 29, 2021, Mr Singh filed a tenant eviction case under Section 13 B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming himself to be a Non-Resident Indian permanently settled in Canada.

Also read: Tenant canât tell landlord which property to use: Supreme Court restores eviction order

Acting on Mr Singhâs plea, the rent controller on August 12, 2021, ordered Mrs Kaur to vacate the property. Fearing her eviction from the property the tenant Mrs Kaur filed an appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On September 7, 2026 she won the eviction case and thus now does not have to get evicted.

Advocate Vaibhav Sehgal represented the tenant before the high court.

The primary reason why Mr Singh (landlord) lost this tenant eviction case in court is because he filed the eviction case on on April 29, 2021 under Section 13-B of the repealed East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. However, the the relevant legal provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was repealed on November 30, 2013. But the tenancy was created only on January 17, 2020 i.e. more than six years after the repeal.

Also read: Landlord wins 14-year-old tenant eviction case; Delhi High Court says âprecise reason for personal useâ not mandatory

When he found out this fact, Mr Singh wanted to change his legal angle and modify the legal provision to Punjab Rent Act, 1995 since this act replaced the East East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, with effect from November 30, 2013. But the court rejected this as well.

Gandhi explains why. The landlord could not rely on the corresponding special remedy available to NRI owners under Section 24(3) Punjab Rent Act, 1995 either. That provision applies only where the premises were let out on or before the commencement of the 1995 Act and the NRI owner returns to India for permanent residence. Since this tenancy commenced in 2020, it fell outside the express scope of Section 24(3).

Although Section 75 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 preserves rights and proceedings that had already accrued or existed under the repealed legislation, it does not create a fresh right under that legislation after its repeal. As there was neither a tenancy nor any pending eviction proceeding concerning these premises on November 30, 2013, no right under Section 13-B had accrued to the landlord that could be saved.

Also read: Daughter becomes co-owner of family property via oral arrangement; she files tenant eviction case and wins in Supreme Court

According to Gandhi, the landlord alternatively argued that the premises were exempt from the 1995 Act. However, the exemption under Section 3(1)(c) depends on when construction was completed and not when the land was purchased. The landlord relied on his purchase of the plot in 2012 but failed to establish the legally relevant date of completion through the completion intimation or property-tax assessment prescribed by the Act. The Rent Controller had also not recorded any categorical finding on this issue.

Importantly, even if the premises were ultimately found to be exempt from the 1995 Act, that would not revive Section 13-B of the repealed 1949 Act. The landlord would instead have to proceed under the general law applicable to exempt premises.

The High Court also found a procedural infirmity: the Rent Controller had substantively reconsidered an earlier order despite not having been conferred with a statutory power of review. In any event, the eviction order could not survive because the original petition itself was not maintainable under the provision invoked.

According to Gandhi, the landlordâs first task in any fresh proceeding will be to establish the legal regime governing the premises. If he claims the fifteen-year exemption under Section 3(1)(c) of the 1995 Act, he must prove the date of completion of construction in the manner prescribed by the Act, principally through the completion intimation given to the concerned authority or the first property-tax assessment, whichever is earlier. The exemption runs for fifteen years from that date and not from the date on which the plot was purchased.

Also read: Landlord filed case to evict tenant but tenant bought 50% share from co-owner mid-dispute and filed partition of property case: HC gives no relief to landlord on eviction case

Gandhi says that if the premises are proved to be within this exemption, the landlord may pursue eviction under the general law applicable to exempt premises, subject to the tenancy documents and the relevant legal requirements. If the premises are not exempt, he must proceed under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 and independently establish one of the ordinary statutory grounds for eviction available under that Act.

Also read: Can your landlord refuse to return your security deposit without any damage? Know your rights as a tenant

Gandhi says: "What the landlord cannot do is revive the special NRI remedy under Section 13-B of the repealed 1949 Act or invoke Section 24(3) of the 1995 Act for this particular tenancy. Any fresh case will be considered independently, and the landlord will still have to prove the requirements of whichever legal remedy he chooses."

After a long courtroom fight, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favour of Mrs Kaur (tenant), rejecting Mr Singhâs plea for her eviction.

Letâs take a closer look at the case and the high court reasoning for ruling the judgement in favour of the tenant.

Mr Singh purchased the property in 2012 and started living in it. In 2020, he rented out the property to Mrs Kaur as he moved to Canada. However, in 2021 Mr Singh had a sudden change of heart and asked Mrs Kaur to evict his property. The reason, as told by Mr Singh to her, was that he needs the property for his personal use as he often faces struggles to find a suitable place to stay whenever he visits India. But Mrs Kaur refused to vacate the property.

Thus on April 29, 2021, Mr Singh filed a tenant eviction case under Section 13 B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming himself to be a Non-Resident Indian permanently settled in Canada.

Also read: Tenant canât tell landlord which property to use: Supreme Court restores eviction order

Acting on Mr Singhâs plea, the rent controller on August 12, 2021, ordered Mrs Kaur to vacate the property. Fearing her eviction from the property the tenant Mrs Kaur filed an appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On September 7, 2026 she won the eviction case and thus now does not have to get evicted.

Advocate Vaibhav Sehgal represented the tenant before the high court.

Why did Mr Singh (landlord) lose the tenant eviction case?

Abhiraj Gandhi, Partner at Khaitan & Co, said to ET Wealth Online: In this case Mr Singh, the landlord lost the case as he wanted to evict the tenant on the basis of an repealed legal provision for NRI landlords.The primary reason why Mr Singh (landlord) lost this tenant eviction case in court is because he filed the eviction case on on April 29, 2021 under Section 13-B of the repealed East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. However, the the relevant legal provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was repealed on November 30, 2013. But the tenancy was created only on January 17, 2020 i.e. more than six years after the repeal.

Also read: Landlord wins 14-year-old tenant eviction case; Delhi High Court says âprecise reason for personal useâ not mandatory

When he found out this fact, Mr Singh wanted to change his legal angle and modify the legal provision to Punjab Rent Act, 1995 since this act replaced the East East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, with effect from November 30, 2013. But the court rejected this as well.

Gandhi explains why. The landlord could not rely on the corresponding special remedy available to NRI owners under Section 24(3) Punjab Rent Act, 1995 either. That provision applies only where the premises were let out on or before the commencement of the 1995 Act and the NRI owner returns to India for permanent residence. Since this tenancy commenced in 2020, it fell outside the express scope of Section 24(3).

Although Section 75 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 preserves rights and proceedings that had already accrued or existed under the repealed legislation, it does not create a fresh right under that legislation after its repeal. As there was neither a tenancy nor any pending eviction proceeding concerning these premises on November 30, 2013, no right under Section 13-B had accrued to the landlord that could be saved.

Also read: Daughter becomes co-owner of family property via oral arrangement; she files tenant eviction case and wins in Supreme Court

According to Gandhi, the landlord alternatively argued that the premises were exempt from the 1995 Act. However, the exemption under Section 3(1)(c) depends on when construction was completed and not when the land was purchased. The landlord relied on his purchase of the plot in 2012 but failed to establish the legally relevant date of completion through the completion intimation or property-tax assessment prescribed by the Act. The Rent Controller had also not recorded any categorical finding on this issue.

Importantly, even if the premises were ultimately found to be exempt from the 1995 Act, that would not revive Section 13-B of the repealed 1949 Act. The landlord would instead have to proceed under the general law applicable to exempt premises.

The High Court also found a procedural infirmity: the Rent Controller had substantively reconsidered an earlier order despite not having been conferred with a statutory power of review. In any event, the eviction order could not survive because the original petition itself was not maintainable under the provision invoked.

What can the landlord do now?

The High Court has set aside the eviction order on the ground of maintainability, without deciding whether the landlord genuinely requires the premises. It has expressly permitted him to pursue any other remedy available under the applicable law.According to Gandhi, the landlordâs first task in any fresh proceeding will be to establish the legal regime governing the premises. If he claims the fifteen-year exemption under Section 3(1)(c) of the 1995 Act, he must prove the date of completion of construction in the manner prescribed by the Act, principally through the completion intimation given to the concerned authority or the first property-tax assessment, whichever is earlier. The exemption runs for fifteen years from that date and not from the date on which the plot was purchased.

Also read: Landlord filed case to evict tenant but tenant bought 50% share from co-owner mid-dispute and filed partition of property case: HC gives no relief to landlord on eviction case

Gandhi says that if the premises are proved to be within this exemption, the landlord may pursue eviction under the general law applicable to exempt premises, subject to the tenancy documents and the relevant legal requirements. If the premises are not exempt, he must proceed under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 and independently establish one of the ordinary statutory grounds for eviction available under that Act.

Also read: Can your landlord refuse to return your security deposit without any damage? Know your rights as a tenant

Gandhi says: "What the landlord cannot do is revive the special NRI remedy under Section 13-B of the repealed 1949 Act or invoke Section 24(3) of the 1995 Act for this particular tenancy. Any fresh case will be considered independently, and the landlord will still have to prove the requirements of whichever legal remedy he chooses."

(Join our ETWealth WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)

Powered by Nyaya 247 News