An NRI is Not Required to Be Physically Present in India: Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the eviction order against Smt. Shanta Rani, tenant of Shop Room No. 2 at Guru Amardas Chowk, Model Town, Jalandhar, in a long-contested dispute with landlady Smt. Nasib Kaur, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI).

The bench, led by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, stated, "An NRI is not required to be physically present in India," effectively clearing up the ambiguity around eviction proceedings involving NRIs under Section 13-B of the Act.

The court dismissed the various arguments presented by the tenant, Smt. Shanta Rani, including questioning the landlord's NRI status and the maintainability of the eviction petition under Section 13-B due to previous proceedings involving other shops owned by the respondent. The court found that each owner could claim possession on separate grounds and that the requirement pleaded by Nasib Kaur could not be held as malafides.

The decision reaffirms the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had earlier rejected the civil revision filed by Smt. Shanta Rani. "The dismissal of an earlier application against one of the tenants is not a ground for dismissal of another ejectment petition filed by the landlord," the High Court had noted.

Legal experts suggest that this judgment could serve as a precedent for cases involving eviction and NRIs, especially concerning the necessity of physical presence in the country.

Smt. Nasib Kaur initiated the eviction proceedings under Section 13, read with Section 13-B of the Act against Smt. Shanta Rani, citing her plans to do business in the tenanted premises after returning from England. The tenant had sought to challenge these proceedings, bringing the case to the Supreme Court.

Date of Decision: 05 October  2023

SMT. SHANTA RANI WIDOW OF AMRIT LAL vs NASIB KAUR WIDOW OF HARBHAJAN SINGH