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.

PIL in Delhi High Court on Govt departments using email accounts on foreign servers and minors using social networking sites

The Delhi High Court, in a PIL,  is examining, among other things, the aspect of breach, if any, of provisions of Information Technology Act and of rules framed thereunder by internet sites like facebook and google by allowing persons below 18 years to enter into an agreement with these sites. It was pointed out by these sites that if it comes in the knowledge of any person that a child below the age of 13 years has opened such an account,  he may make a complaint to the social networking site who then take appropriate action, after verification, for deletion of that account. In this regard, Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have been notified under the IT Act. Rule 3 requires due diligence to be observed by the intermediary. The social  networking sites such as Facebook and Orkut fall within the definition of “Intermediary” as per Rule 2(i) of the said Rules read with Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3 of the said Rules applies to them. It was informed that in accordance with Rule 3(1), both Facebook and Orkut have published the Rules and Regulations as also the privacy policy and user agreements for access and usage of their computer resource. Rule 3(2) contains certain other directions as to what should be the content of the Rules and Regulations, terms and conditions and the user agreements. Under Rule 3(4), the intermediary can take action for disabling any such information as mentioned in rule 3(2), both on a complaint in writing from affected persons as well as on obtaining knowledge by itself. By virtue of a subsequent clarificatory notification, it has been clarified that the intermediary shall respond to or acknowledge the complainant within thirty six hours and the same shall be redressed promptly but in any case within 30 days. 

The court vide its order dated 23rd August 2013 directed, after being pointed out Rule 3(11), that intermediaries, including the social networking sites such as Facebook and Orkut, should immediately publish the names of the respective Grievance Officers on their websites alongwith contact numbers as well as the mechanism by which any user or any victim who suffers as a result of access or usage of computer resource by any person in violation of rule 3, can notify their complaints against such access or usage. This order was complied with by these websites, as recorded by the court in its order dated 23rd September 2013 and 30th October 2013.

The court in the said PIL is also looking into the issue of Government departments and officers using email accounts of service providers having servers located outside India and whether this violates provision of Public Records Act, 1993. It was informed to the court by the Government of India that the Government is on the verge of finalizing an E-mail Policy and Govt would ensure that there is complete conformity between E-mail Policy and the said Act with regard to public records.

The PIL will now come up on 26th September 2014. It was filed by shri K.N.Govindacharya and its case no. is Writ Petition (civil) No.3672/2012.

Complaint under Section 138 NI Act for cheque dishonor can be filed only at place where the account from which the cheque is issued and dishonored is located

In a landmark decision which is going to have very wide ramifications in the cheque dishonor cases throughout India, a 3-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 1st August 2014 in the case titled as 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra' held that a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque can be filed only in the court at the place where the bank branch in which the accused has his account and from which account the cheque was issued and dishonored, is located. This is departure from the earlier judicial dispensation whereunder the complainant could file case at any of the several places like the place where the cheque was deposited by the complainant. The latest judgment on territorial jurisidiction of criminal court in a case under Section 138 has taken into account the harassment faced by the people who are impleaded as accused in complaint cases filed under Section 138 at places far away from the accused's place. The court also took note of the fact that Section 138 of the NI Act is being rampantly misused so far as territorial jurisdiction for trial of the complaint is concerned.

The Court further clarified that all pending complaint cases under Section 138 where the case is still at early stage and recording of evidence under Section 145(2) of the NI Act after appearance of accused has not yet started, will be returned by the concerned magistrate's courts for the complainant to file the same in proper court within 30 days from the date of return of complaint. 

This judgment is going to affect lakhs of cases and is likely to set a milestone in criminal jurisprudence as far as the law relating to cheque dishonor is concerned. 

Read the Full Judgment.

Patients have right to take their medical records under RTI from Hospitals, rules CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) in a far reaching judgment, delivered a detailed judgment on 24^th July 2014 holding that a person has right to take copy of his or her medical records from the hospital., whether Govt or private hospitals, under RTI Act. The Commission referred to various judgments and constitutional provisions as also medical ethics in support of its judgment.

This judgment was delivered in the case of Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences, Govt of NCT of Delhi on 24^th July 2014.

Read the Full Judgment. 

Sunil Goel advocate B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm