He moved to Canada and rented his Punjab house for Rs 20,000 a month, then sought eviction to use it during India visits; Punjab & Haryana HC rules against landlord, allows tenant to stayA man owned a residential property in Jagraon, Punjab, which he rented out after moving to Canada. A lady became the tenant and paid Rs 20,000 a month in rent. The arrangement continued without any reported issue until the man decided that he wanted the property back.He sought to regain possession because he wanted to use the house for himself during his visits to India. He therefore asked the woman to vacate the property. She declined, following which the owner approached the court and initiated eviction proceedings against his tenant.After the case went through a prolonged legal battle, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favour of the tenant and rejected the landlord’s plea seeking her eviction.Here is a closer look at the dispute and the reasons given by the high court for deciding the case in favour of the tenant.
What the case is about
The man had purchased the property in 2012 and initially lived there himself. After moving to Canada in 2020, he rented the house to the woman. A year later, in 2021, he asked her to leave the property.According to the landlord, he needed the house for his own use because he frequently faced difficulty finding suitable accommodation whenever he travelled to India. The tenant, however, refused to vacate the premises.The man subsequently filed an eviction petition against her on April 29, 2021, invoking Section 13 B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. He claimed the benefit of the provision on the ground that he was a Non-Resident Indian permanently settled in Canada.The rent controller accepted the landlord’s plea and, on August 12, 2021, directed the woman to vacate the property, according to an ET report.Facing the prospect of losing the home, the tenant challenged the eviction order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The high court ruled in her favour on September 7, 2026, rejecting the eviction claim and allowing her to remain in the property.
Why did the landlord lose the tenant eviction case?
Abhiraj Gandhi, Partner at Khaitan & Co, told ET that the landlord’s eviction plea failed because he sought to remove the tenant by relying on a legal provision meant for NRI landlords that had already been repealed.The central issue was that the man filed the eviction petition on April 29, 2021 under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. However, the relevant provision under that law had been repealed on November 30, 2013. The tenancy in this case began only on January 17, 2020, more than six years after the repeal had taken effect.After this issue came to light, the landlord attempted to change the legal basis of his case. He sought to rely instead on the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, which replaced the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act with effect from November 30, 2013. The court, however, did not accept this change either.Gandhi explained that the landlord could not invoke the corresponding special remedy available to NRI landlords under Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. That provision applies when the premises were let out on or before the commencement of the 1995 Act and the NRI owner subsequently returns to India for permanent residence. Since the tenancy in this case began in 2020, it did not fall within the specific scope of Section 24(3).Section 75 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 does preserve rights and proceedings that had already arisen or were in existence under the repealed law.However, Gandhi said this provision cannot be used to create a new right under legislation after that legislation has been repealed. In this case, there was neither an existing tenancy nor a pending eviction proceeding relating to the property on November 30, 2013. Therefore, no right under Section 13-B had accrued to him that could subsequently be preserved.The landlord also put forward an alternative argument that the property was exempt from the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. Gandhi explained that the exemption under Section 3(1)(c) is determined by the date on which construction was completed, rather than the date on which the land was purchased.The landlord had relied on his purchase of the plot in 2012. However, he failed to establish the legally relevant completion date through the completion intimation or property-tax assessment required under the Act. The Rent Controller had also not made a specific finding on this issue.Gandhi further pointed out that even if the property were eventually held to fall outside the scope of the 1995 Act, this would not bring back Section 13-B of the repealed 1949 legislation. In that situation, the landlord would have to pursue the remedies available under the general law governing exempt premises.The High Court also identified a procedural problem in the proceedings. The Rent Controller had effectively reconsidered an earlier order even though no statutory power of review had been conferred on the authority.In any event, the eviction order could not stand because the original petition itself was not maintainable under the legal provision on which
What are the landlord’s options?
The High Court has overturned the eviction order because the petition was not maintainable, without examining whether the landlord actually needed the property for his own use.The court has, however, left the door open for him to pursue any other remedy available to him under the applicable law.Gandhi told ET that the landlord’s first priority in any new proceedings would be to determine which legal framework applies to the property.If he seeks to claim the 15-year exemption under Section 3(1)(c) of the 1995 Act, he will have to establish the date on which construction was completed in the manner specified under the law. This would primarily require the completion intimation submitted to the relevant authority or the first property-tax assessment, whichever occurred earlier. The 15-year exemption is calculated from that date and not from the date when the plot was purchased.If the property is established to fall within the exemption, Gandhi said the landlord could seek eviction under the general law applicable to exempt premises, subject to the terms of the tenancy documents and other applicable legal requirements.If the property does not qualify for the exemption, the landlord would instead have to proceed under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. In that situation, he would need to independently establish one of the ordinary statutory grounds for eviction provided under the Act.
