SC upholds NRIs right to claim Eviction under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Rent Act) which gives right to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) to recover immediate possession of residential/ scheduled/non-residential buildings situated in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and urban areas in the State of Punjab on the satisfaction of the conditions stated therein..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjiv Khanna in the appeals filed by tenants of different residential and non-residential buildings in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and urban areas in the State of Punjab..The provision under challenge had been inserted in the Rent Act vide East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 which was enacted by the State Legislature of Punjab..Section 13B was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh as well vide Notification dated October 9, 2009 (Notification). The notification was issued under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (Reorganisation Act)..The following were the issues presented before the Supreme Court:.Whether the Notification under Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act was valid?.In dealing with this issue, the Court relied upon the judgment in Ramesh Birch v. Union of India .“The judicial decisions referred to above make it clear that it is not necessary that the legislature should “dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s” of its policy..They are small territories falling under the legislative jurisdiction of Parliament which has hardly sufficient time to look after the details of all their legislative needs and requirements. To require or expect Parliament to legislate for them will entail a disproportionate pressure on its legislative schedule.”.The Supreme Court reasoned that the extension of the Amendment Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh falls within the ambit of conditional delegation. Emphasis was also given to the rationale in the case of Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India which reads as follows:.“The distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation is clear and unambiguous. In a conditional legislation the delegatee has to apply the law to an area or to determine the time and manner of carrying it into effect or at such time, as it decides or to understand the rule of legislation, it would be a conditional legislation..Delegated legislation, however, involves delegation of rule-making power of legislation and authorises an executive authority to bring in force such an area by reason thereof.”.The Court further reasoned that, the power to make laws in a Union Territory vests with the Parliament under Article 246(4). As per Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act, the power to extend laws to the Union Territory of Chandigarh vests with the Central Government, that is the Parliament or the Central Executive and therefore, the same is permissible in the present case, the Court ruled..Therefore, the Court rejected the argument of the doctrine of excessive delegation and separation of powers by the tenants..Whether Section 13B of the Rent Act is arbitrary and unreasonable?.Section 18-A of the Rent Act prescribes a summary procedure for recovery of possession applicable to eviction petitions filed by Non-Resident Indian landlords under Section 13-B of the Rent Act..The Act very evidently puts in place certain conditions. The landlord should have been the owner of the premises for five years. The eviction petition can be filed only once during the lifetime. There is a further restriction placed on sale or lease of the premises for a period of five years from the date of taking possession from the tenant. If there is a breach of any of the conditions, then the tenant has a right to seek restoration of possession..Additionally, a punishment of six months imprisonment or a fine of one thousand rupees or both is applicable, if the landlord does not occupy the premises for a continuous period of three months after getting an eviction order..The Supreme Court was of the opinion that there are several checks placed to avoid frivolous evictions and only “bona fide requirement” of the landlords shall have the protection of law..Hence, it turned down the contention that Section 13B was arbitrary..Whether Section 13B is invalid and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution?.The Court pointed out that the object and reasons for enacting Section 13B was that the State government had been receiving representations from various NRI individuals. The NRIs were not able to settle in India since they were finding it difficult to recover possession of their own residential buildings from the tenants..In such a scenario, the right of the NRIs has to be balanced with the right of the tenants. Keeping this in mind, Section 13B of the Rent Act was passed. Therefore, the Court found that there was an intelligible differentia and hence held that there was no violation of Article 14..The Court further proceeded to note:.“The right of Non-Resident Indians to initiate eviction under the summary procedure provided in Section 18-A of the Rent Act is not an unfettered and absolute right. It is subject to satisfaction of various pre-requisites and imperatives that ensure and check potential abuse by resorting to a short-circuit procedure. The requirement should arise from a genuine need of the Non Resident Indian landlord or his dependent.”.In view of these observations, the Court dismissed the appeal..[Read Judgment]