In CR-2198-2021(O&M)-PUNJ HC- If landlord rents out shop to someone other than his family members after getting it vacated within 3 years, then evicted tenant has a right to approach Rent Controller for restoration: P&H HC on Sec.13(6) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
Justice H.S. Madaan [01-06-2023]

Read Order:Krishan Lal And Others Vs. Ashok Jain 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, June 7, 2023: While reiterating that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition of the tenants after noting that the landlord had brought sufficient cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he had a bona fide need for the demised shop and his such need was not just a wish.

“ In the present case, the order passed by Rent Controller, Ambala dismissing the rent petition filed by the landlord was obviously wrong and illegal result of inability to understand the factual position properly and to apply law in an appropriate manner”, Justice H.S. Madaan held. 

The facts of the case were such that the petitioner/landlord had brought a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against respondent-tenant-firm Krishan Lal and sons seeking ejectment of respondents from the demised Shop.

 The petitioner claimed that he required the shop in question for his personal use and occupation. He required the shop in dispute for his son Ankit Jain and Ankit Jain's wife Neha Jain because Ankit Jain was dependent upon the petitioner.

Another ground taken by the petitioner seeking ejectment of respondents was that they had created nuisance in the locality and had also encroached some portion and some people quarreled with them. According to the petitioner, he had not vacated any shop after the year 1949 without any reasonable cause and that the respondents were in arrears of rent for the period from January, 2013 onwards, which the respondents had not paid/tendered in spite of repeated requests and demands. The Ambala  Rent Controller had dismissed the petition.

The petitioner-landlord had approached the Appellate Authority i.e. District Judge, Ambala by way of filing an appeal, who had accepted the appeal. The respondents/tenants were given two months time from the date of judgment to hand over the vacant possession of the premises under their tenancy to the petitioner/landlord, failing which, the petitioner-landlord would be at liberty to approach the competent executing Court for ejectment of respondents/tenants. Therefore, the respondents/tenants  approached the High Court by way of filing the revision petition. 

The Bench opined that if son of the landlord wants to expand his business in the demised shop having direct access to the road, there is nothing wrong in his such plans. He cannot be advised to find some other place for expansion of his business and allow the revision petitioners to keep possession of the shop in dispute.

It was observed that since the shop where the son of the landlord is running his business adjoins the demised shop and son of the landlord wants to expand his business, the demised shop has been found to be suitable for that purpose and the revision petitioners - tenants are nobody to advise the landlord that his son should either shift to some other place for his business or get possession of some other shop nearby.

Considering the fact that the demised property was being mentioned as shop right from the very beginning, which had been rented out to the father of the revision petitioners several years back where he had been running Halwai business and after his death his sons the revision petitioners are engaged in that avocation, the Bench opined that there was nothing to show that those were constructed for residential purpose and were used as such at any point of time. 

The Bench opined that the Rent Controller clearly fell in error in drawing the inference that the petitioner had failed to lead any cogent, clinching and reliable evidence to prove that he required the shop in dispute for his bona fide need, when the landlord had brought sufficient cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he had a bona fide need for the demised shop and his such need was not just a wish. 

There was nothing to show that the petition had been filed by the petitioner/landlord with a mala fide intention to enhance the rent or some other extraneous consideration. “Even otherwise under Section 13(6) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, if the landlord rent out the shop to some other person after getting it vacated within a period of three years, then the tenant has got a right to approach the Rent Controller for restoration. Therefore, the Legislature has provided a proper safeguard against ejectments for extraneous reasons”, the Bench held.

Noting that the revisional jurisdiction of the Court is quite limited, the Bench dismissed the revision petition.