PM announces merging of OCI, PIO cards

PM announces merging of OCI, PIO cards - Indian Express

NRIs entitled to speedy eviction of tenants: HC

Chandigarh, August 25
In a judgment affecting tenants residing in properties owned by nonresident Indians, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the provision of the law providing for speedy remedy to NRIs “in bona fide need of premises let out to tenants”. The ruling came on a petition filed by Asha Chawla and other petitioners against the Union of India and other respondents.
In their petition placed before the bench of acting chief justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and justice AK Mittal, the petitioners had earlier sought direction for declaring unconstitutional the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 and the notification dated October 9, 2009 issued by the central government extending the amended Act to the union territory of Chandigarh.
The petitioners had claimed they were tenants in residential and nonresidential buildings in Chandigarh. They stated they were “facing eviction proceedings at the instance of different nonresident Indian landlords under section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949”, amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001.
After hearing the rival contentions, the bench observed section 13B of the Act provided for special right in favour of landlords under the category of nonresident Indians.
“The classification of nonresident Indians, as a separate class of landlords, cannot be held to be violative of article 14 of the Indian constitution. The right to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide need is available to all landlords. The only difference in the case of NRIs and certain other specified landlords is that the right to contest eviction proceedings is governed by special procedure….” “The classification is not shown to be irrational. The same is intelligible and has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved, that is, providing speedy remedy to nonresidents in bona fide need of premises let out to tenants”, the bench stated.
“As regards the validity of the impugned notification extending the Punjab Act to the union territory of Chandigarh, the contention has to be rejected in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramesh Birch and others vs Union of India and others, upholding the notification extending the 1985 amendment of the state of Punjab to the union territory of Chandigarh…. We, thus, do not find any merit in the petition. Dismissed,” the bench concluded.