Supreme Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant Under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act: Shanta Rani vs. Nasib Kaur (2023) INSC 874 (October 5, 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 5, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 874

Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J., Sanjay Kumar, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Can a landlord evict a tenant if they are a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and need the property for their own business? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the rights of NRI landlords to reclaim their properties for personal use under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The court examined whether the eviction order against the tenant was justified, considering the landlord’s NRI status and need for the premises. This judgment clarifies the legal process and rights of NRI landlords seeking to reclaim their properties. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and S.V.N. Bhatti, with Justice S.V.N. Bhatti authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Smt. Shanta Rani, the appellant, was a tenant in Shop Room No. 2 in Jalandhar, Punjab, owned by Smt. Nasib Kaur, the respondent. The respondent, an NRI residing in England, sought to evict the appellant to start a readymade garments business in the tenanted premises. The respondent claimed she had lost her job in England due to a recession and intended to relocate to India. Initially, the respondent filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, citing non-payment of rent. Later, she amended the application to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act, which provides a special procedure for NRIs to reclaim their properties for personal use.

The appellant contested the eviction, arguing that the respondent was not genuinely relocating to India and that the eviction application was not maintainable. The appellant also raised objections about the ownership of the property and the maintainability of the eviction petition, given that the respondent’s co-owner had also filed a similar eviction petition for another property. The Rent Controller dismissed the appellant’s application for leave to defend and ordered eviction. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the Rent Controller’s order. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Rent Controller initially dismissed the appellant’s application for leave to defend, holding that the respondent was indeed an NRI and the eviction petition was maintainable. The Rent Controller also noted that the respondent owned the tenanted premises and that the filing of a previous eviction petition by the respondent’s co-owner did not bar the respondent from seeking eviction under Section 13-B of the Act. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the appellant.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the Rent Controller’s decision, rejecting the appellant’s arguments that the eviction petition was not maintainable due to the dismissal of an earlier application, the amendment of the petition from Section 13 to Section 13-B, and the previous eviction order in favor of the co-owner. The High Court concluded that each owner could claim possession on separate grounds and that the respondent’s need was genuine.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 13 and Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Section 13 of the Act deals with the general grounds for eviction of a tenant, whereas Section 13-B provides a special procedure for Non-Resident Indian (NRI) landlords to seek eviction of their tenants for their own use. Section 18-A of the Act provides for the procedure for seeking leave to defend in summary eviction proceedings.

Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 states:

“13-B. Right of Non-Resident Indian to recover possession of building or rented land in certain cases. – (1) Where a landlord, who is a Non-Resident Indian, requires a building or rented land, let out by him or her, for his or her use or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her, he or she may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of such building or rented land. (2) Where, the landlord, referred to in sub-section (1), has more than one building or rented land, he or she shall be entitled to recover possession of one of such building or rented land, as the case may be, of his or her choice.”

Section 18-A (4) and (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 states:

“(4) The Controller shall give to the tenant a notice in the prescribed form to appear before him on a date not later than fifteen days from the date of service of the notice and to show cause against the application for eviction, failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to obtain an order for immediate possession.
(5) If the tenant appears pursuant to the notice, the Controller shall give him leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction and in such a case, the Controller shall proceed to hear the case in the same manner as is provided in Rule 4 of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

The Act aims to balance the rights of landlords and tenants while providing a special mechanism for NRIs to reclaim their properties for personal use. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these provisions is crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the respondent was a permanent resident of the United Kingdom and had not shifted to India, therefore, the eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was not maintainable.
• The appellant denied the relationship of landlady and tenant with the respondent.
• The appellant contended that the eviction application under Section 13-B of the Act was not maintainable because the respondent was a co-owner of Shop Room No. 3, for which an eviction petition was also filed under Section 13-B.
• The appellant argued that the respondent was not genuinely intending to start a business in India and was using Section 13-B as a convenient way to evict the tenant.
• The appellant also pointed out that the respondent’s co-owner, S. Kuldeep Singh, had already obtained an eviction order for Shop Room No. 5, and thus, the respondent was seeking possession of more than one premises.
• The appellant contended that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the High Court had ignored the limitation prescribed in Section 13-B of the Act, and the possession order in favor of S. Kuldeep Singh disentitles Nasib Kaur from maintaining an application under Section 13-B of the Act.
• The appellant referred to the definition of “building” in Section 2(a) of the Act and argued that the owners of both shop premises are not entitled to eviction of tenants through the summary procedure.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that she is an NRI who has been residing in England and is entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
• The respondent stated that she lost her job in England and intends to relocate to India to start a business in the tenanted premises.
• The respondent relied on the passport to prove her status as a Non-Resident Indian.
• The respondent contended that the dismissal of an earlier eviction application against one of the tenants is not a ground for dismissal of another ejectment petition.
• The respondent argued that the eviction order in favor of S. Kuldeep Singh does not bar her from maintaining an application under Section 13-B of the Act.
• The respondent stated that each one of the owners claimed possession on separate grounds and the owner of Shop Room No. 2 is not disentitled to file the present application.
• The respondent argued that the appellant cannot raise new grounds that were not argued before the High Court.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the issues can be inferred from the arguments and the court’s analysis:

1. Whether the respondent, being an NRI, is entitled to seek eviction of the appellant under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
2. Whether the eviction petition is maintainable despite the respondent being a co-owner of another property for which an eviction petition was also filed under Section 13-B of the Act.
3. Whether the respondent’s intention to start a business in India is genuine.
4. Whether the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the High Court had ignored the limitation prescribed in Section 13-B of the Act.
5. Whether the possession order in favor of S. Kuldeep Singh disentitles Nasib Kaur from maintaining an application under Section 13-B of the Act.
6. Whether the owners of both shop premises are entitled to eviction of tenants through the summary procedure.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order. The court noted that the appellant had not raised all available grounds before the High Court, and therefore, could not expand the scope of contentions in the Civil Appeal. The court also held that the new pleas introduced by the appellant, referring to additional documents filed in a related case, would not further the appellant’s case.

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court, stating that the appellant had failed to make a case that the appraisal of available material was perverse or that the Rent Controller had erred in refusing leave to defend. The court also stated that it does not ordinarily go into the credibility of the findings of fact or reappraise the averments under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Sat Pal v. Om Prakash, (2007) 2 Civil Court Cases 309: The Rent Controller relied on this judgment to interpret the definition of ‘Non-Resident Indian’ and the Supreme Court upheld this view.

✓ Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778: The Court stated that the eviction order was passed on the principles laid down by this case.

✓ Ram Krishan Grover and others v. Union of India and others, (2020) 12 SCC 506: The Court stated that the eviction order was passed on the principles laid down by this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The respondent’s status as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and her need for the property for personal use.
• The fact that the appellant had not raised all available grounds before the High Court.
• The concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court on the respondent’s NRI status and the maintainability of the eviction petition.
• The limited scope of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which does not allow the Court to re-evaluate findings of fact.
• The Court’s view that the eviction order was passed on the principles laid down in the cases of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778 and Ram Krishan Grover and others v. Union of India and others, (2020) 12 SCC 506.

The Court emphasized that the appellant had not presented any new evidence or legal arguments that would warrant a reversal of the lower courts’ decisions. The Court also noted that the appellant’s arguments were largely based on factual contentions that had already been considered and rejected by the Rent Controller and the High Court.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the respondent’s NRI status and the appellant’s failure to raise all grounds before the High Court, than by legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning followed a logical progression from the initial claim to the final decision, with each step building upon the previous one.

“The Appellant failed to make out a case that the appraisal of available material is either perverse or the Rent Controller informed a reason for granting leave to defend.”

“In our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we do not ordinarily go into the credibility of the findings of fact, reappraise the averments, and record results.”

“After perusing the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the High Court, we believe that the grounds urged are without merit, and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• Non-Resident Indian (NRI) landlords have the right to seek eviction of their tenants under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, if they require the property for their own use.
• The courts will not generally re-evaluate findings of fact made by lower courts unless there is a clear error or perversity.
• Tenants must raise all available grounds of challenge before the High Court and cannot expand the scope of contentions in appeals to the Supreme Court.
• The dismissal of an earlier eviction application against one tenant does not bar the landlord from seeking eviction against another tenant.
• Each owner can claim possession on separate grounds, and the respondent was not barred from maintaining the eviction petition.

The judgment reinforces the rights of NRI landlords to reclaim their properties for personal use and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. It also highlights the importance of raising all available grounds of challenge at the earliest opportunity.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeal and upholding the eviction order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) landlords to seek eviction of their tenants under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, if they require the property for their own use. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new legal principles. The court emphasized the importance of raising all available grounds of challenge before the High Court and the limited scope of interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order against the tenant. The court reaffirmed the rights of NRI landlords to reclaim their properties for personal use under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The judgment emphasizes the need for tenants to raise all available grounds of challenge at the earliest opportunity and the limited scope of interference by the Supreme Court in factual matters.