that persons who have not acquired Indian citizenship cannot obtain to a Non-resident Indian status. The contention is directly against the definition of “Non-Resident Indian” under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. All that is required under Section 2 (dd) is that the person shall be a person of Indian origin, who had either permanently or temporarily settled outside India. It should be in any of the three circumstances delineated under the Section itself, namely (a) that he had taken up employment outside India; or (b) that he was carrying on a business or vocation outside India; or (c)for any other purpose that would indicate his intention to stay outside India for a uncertain period. By this definition, even a person who was permanently settled outside India carrying on a business for taking up employment such as in this case, the petitioners were professional teachers, qualify for status as NRI. The issue of citizenship is wholly irrelevant. The same way, the other contention taken up in the grounds of revision is that the petitioners have been living away from India for a long time and there is no reason for them to return to India in the evening years of their lives. A provision such as Section 13-B under the Act fast tracking certain types of cases is to make possible for persons who have gone out of India to have an incentive to come back to India. The prospect of long drawn litigation could be dampen such a spirit and therefore a statutory recognition of a imminent possibility to secure eviction must be given due effect. If the landlord declares that he requires the premises for his personal occupation and intends to come back to india, unless an oblique motive is seen and there is some ground to suspect the bona fides, there shall be no occasion
