The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- A Canada-based landlord sought to evict his tenant in Jagraon, Punjab, to use the house during his visits to India.
- The landlord attempted to use an NRI-specific eviction provision from a law that had been repealed years before his tenancy began.
- The High Court rejected the petition, ruling the legal basis for the eviction was not maintainable.
- This decision prevents the immediate displacement of the tenant.
What to watch next
- Determination of whether the property qualifies for the 15-year exemption under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995.
- Potential initiation of new eviction proceedings by the landlord under alternative legal frameworks.
Who said what1
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Abhiraj Gandhi
Partner at Khaitan & Co
1 quote · 1 outlet
“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because he sought to remove the tenant by relying on a legal provision meant for NRI landlords that had already been repealed.”
In the article
…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because he sought to remove the tenant by relying on a legal provision meant for NRI landlords that had already been repealed.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 However, the relevant provision under that law had been repealed…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Canada · Jagraon · Abhiraj Gandhi · Khaitan & Co · Punjab and Haryana High Court
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.