The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant ruling protecting a tenant’s right to stay in a residential property in Jagraon, Punjab, dismissing an eviction plea filed by her Canada-based landlord. The dispute arose after the owner, who had purchased the property in 2012 and lived there initially, relocated to Canada in 2020. Following his move, he rented out the house to a woman for a monthly rent of Rs 20,000.
The arrangement proceeded without major issues until 2021, when the landlord decided he wanted the property back to accommodate himself during his visits to India. When the tenant declined to vacate, the owner initiated formal eviction proceedings on April 29, 2021. Initially, the rent controller accepted the landlord’s plea and directed the tenant to leave. However, the tenant challenged this decision, leading to a favorable ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the eviction order.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Legal experts analyzing the case highlighted that the landlord’s petition failed primarily because he relied on a legal provision meant for NRI landlords that had already been repealed. Specifically, the owner invoked Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. However, this provision was repealed on November 30, 2013, whereas the tenancy in question only commenced on January 17, 2020—more than six years after the repeal.
When this legal flaw came to light, the landlord attempted to shift his legal basis to the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, which had replaced the older legislation. The court rejected this switch as well, noting that the special remedy under Section 24(3) of the 1995 Act applies only when premises were let out on or before the commencement of that Act. Because the tenancy began in 2020, it fell outside the scope of that provision. Additionally, attempts to establish an exemption based on property construction completion dates failed due to a lack of required documentation, such as official completion intimations or proper property-tax assessments.
Although the High Court overturned the eviction order due to the petition’s lack of maintainability, it did not evaluate whether the landlord genuinely needed the home for personal use. Consequently, the court left the door open for the landlord to explore other appropriate legal paths under current laws. If he wishes to pursue future proceedings, he must first correctly establish the governing legal framework and properly document construction timelines to claim any statutory exemptions.
