NRI landlord can not be asked to prove his title to get the tenant evicted, rules Supreme Court

A bench of Justice TS Thakur and Justice C Nagappan of Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Kamaljit Singh vs Sarabjit Singh' Civil Appeal No. 8410 of 2014 held on 2nd September 2014 that Non-resident Indians (NRIs) cannot be asked to prove ownership of their property to get their tenants evicted. 

In the case in hand, an NRI who was born and brought up in India had migrated to UK but decided to return to India in 2002 after spending 30 years in the UK with the intention of settling down and establishing a hotel at Phagwara his home town in Punjab. He had let out a shop in a building situated at Banga Road, Phagwara. The tenant refused to vacate the shop. The NRI filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949, stating that he was an NRI and needed the shop for his own use and was hence entitled to get it vacated. The rent controller dismissed his eviction petition on the ground that the NRI failed to prove his ownership over the premises for a period of five years before the filing of the eviction petition as mandated under the law. On appeal by the NRI, the Punjab & Haryana High Court also ruled against the NRI. The NRI then appealed to Supreme Court which allowed the plea of the NRI. The Court held that Section 13-B of the said Act is a beneficial provision intended to provide a speedy remedy to NRIs who return to their native places and need property let out by them for their own requirement or the requirement of those who are living with and economically dependent upon them. Their position cannot, therefore, be worse off than what it would have been if they were not NRIs. Once the tenant admits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the NRI, the NRI landlord was not under any obligation to prove his title to the property. The court directed the tenant to vacate the premises by March 31, 2015, subject to the condition that he clears his rent arrears in six weeks and submits an undertaking in court that he would clear out by that date and if he fails to abide by these, the eviction decree can be executed right away.

Read the Full Judgment.

Take concrete and expeditious steps to clean river Ganga, Supreme Court tells Government of India

The Supreme Court of India in a PIL ‘M.C.Mehta  vs Union of India and others’ Writ Petition (Civil) No.3727/1985 is inter-alia looking into the issue of pollution in holy river Ganga. The matter came up before a bench of Justice T.S.Thakur and Justice Mrs. R.Banumathi on 3rd September 2014. The Court was not satisfied by the affidavit sworn and filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India and Mission Director, National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG). The affidavit sets out the historical background in which the Ganga Action Plans were prepared, the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) and different committees, directorates and authorities constituted under the National Ganga River Basin Authority. The affidavit also sets out the Externally Aided Projects (EAP) taken up in connection with the Mission with the help of World Bank and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). It also sets out certain non-EAP plans currently being handled by the Authority and broadly identifies steps that the Government proposes to take in its endeavour to save the holy river from pollution resultant degeneration and possible extinction. The Supreme Court was of the view that apart from setting out the broad parameters of what the Government has in mind, the affidavit does not set out the stagewise developments that the Government aims to achieve in its mission to clean the river. The Solicitor General for the Government stated that he will file a supplementary affidavit in which the Government would detail the stages through which the projects relating to cleaning of Ganga would progress and the estimated time-frame within which such stagewise progress will be achieved. The Court granted three weeks to do so.  The petitioner requested that the supplementary affidavit may additionally set out further steps, if any, taken by the Government in relation to “ecological sensitive zones/areas” by the Government from Gangotri downstream to 135 Kms. of the river length. He submitted that a notification was issued on 18.12.2012 in this regard but no follow-up steps have been taken by the Government ever since. The court accepted the request and directed Government to address this aspect also in its supplementary affidavit. The matter was adjourned to 24th September, 2014.

Click here for the Full text of the Order dated 3rd September 2014.