Summary
The Court held that an NRI owner may invoke Section 13-B of the East Punjab rent legislation against a tenant inducted by a predecessor, after the statutory five-year ownership period and subject to the provision’s requirements. Nathi Devi’s interpretation of the differently framed Delhi widow-landlord provision did not govern. The eviction order was upheld, with six months to vacate upon a timely undertaking.
Issues
- Whether an NRI who acquires already-tenanted premises can use Section 13-B’s summary possession remedy.
- Whether Nathi Devi’s interpretation of the Delhi Rent Control Act required the applicant personally to have inducted the tenant.
Provisions considered
- Section 13-B, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949The NRI ownership provision permits proceedings after five years of ownership irrespective of who originally inducted the tenant, subject to its statutory conditions. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 14-D, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958The differently worded widow-landlord provision interpreted in Nathi Devi was distinguished rather than applied to the Punjab NRI-owner provision. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18)
Held
- The two enactments differ in wording, protected categories and legislative setting. The Delhi provision concerns a widow landlord and premises let by her or her husband; the Punjab NRI provision deliberately uses owner and includes a five-year ownership qualification. Nathi Devi could not be transplanted without considering those differences. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Reading Section 13-B with its proviso, the NRI owner must wait five years from becoming owner, irrespective of the person who inducted the tenant. It does not impose an additional condition requiring the present owner to have created the tenancy originally. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The Court distinguished inception of tenancy from the subsisting letting relationship. Upon acquisition and attornment, the landlord-tenant relationship exists with the successor owner and the premises are let under that owner. The tenant’s proposed construction was therefore rejected. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Result
Tenant’s appeal dismissed and eviction upheld. Six months granted to vacate, conditional on furnishing the usual undertaking within two weeks; no costs.