In CR-3417-2014-PUNJ HC- When eviction is sought by landlord on ground of bona fide necessity for expanding his business or even establishing new business, presumption must be drawn that need of landlord is genuine and bona fide unless otherwise proved: P&H HC 
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul [04-08-2022]

Read Order: Sumer Chand through his legal representatives v. M/s Mela Ram Dharam Sarup and another 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 25, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that as and when eviction is sought by a landlord on the ground of bona fide necessity for expanding his business or even establishing a new business whether for himself or for settling his children, a presumption must be drawn that the need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide unless otherwise proved. 

“The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant as such cannot dictate his terms to the landlord. No doubt the object and purpose of the Act is to protect the tenants from arbitrary eviction on mere wishes or desires of the landlord, but at the same time the interest and requirement of the landlord is also to be safeguarded and cannot be overlooked. Equilibrium has to be achieved while adjudging the conflicting interest of the parties and while doing so the scales cannot be allowed to tilt in favour of one party to the detriment of the other”, opined the Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. 

The landlord filed the instant revision to impugn the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in a petition filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (‘Act’) by him vide which he sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant. Parties shall be referred to by their original positions in the rent petition. 

Essentially, the petitioner-landlord had a shop, one portion of which was given on rent to the respondent-tenant while the other was used by him. Later, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises primarily on the grounds that the tenant had not paid rent to the landlord for some months; and secondly, on the ground that the demised premises was required by the landlord for his personal use as he wanted to expand his business and also settle his two married sons. It was also claimed that the landlord was not in occupation of any other commercial building within the municipal area of Kalka, except the one mentioned in the petition, nor had he got any other premises vacated since the enforcement of the Act, without any reasonable cause. 

It was alleged that all four sons of the landlord were well settled as the landlord along with his sons was running the business of auto spare parts as well as a confectionary shop. Besides this, the landlord was also a supplier of Vita & Verka Milk. It was further alleged that the landlord had got some of his shops vacated and let out to other tenants while some shops were still lying vacant and were in his possession. It was asserted that the landlord was a 75-year-old man who had failed to bring to the fore any bonafide necessity to get the demised premises vacated as he was actively involved in the business of all his four sons and had been functioning in an advisory capacity. 

On the basis of the material and evidence led, both the courts below dismissed the petition filed by the landlord, holding that the tenant had successfully rebutted the claim of the landlord qua any bona fide need of the demised premises for expanding his business and for settling his sons. It was further held that since both the sons of the landlord i.e. Sandeep and Vinay were very well settled in their businesses, the need of the landlord was not bona fide. 

After hearing the parties, the Court opined that from a reading of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, it flows that the landlord must satisfy that the demised premises is required by him for his own occupation. 

“The “requirement” postulated therein should not be a mere wish or desire, rather it must be a bona fide one. Still further, the expression “his own occupation” would also cover the need for the occupation of the demised premises for his family members. Whether the need is bona fide or a mere wish or a desire would be a question to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each individual case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down for the same”, observed the Court. 

Adverting to the present case, the Court was of the opinion that the landlord by way of a petition under Section 13 of the Act sought eviction of the tenant not only on grounds of bona fide requirement for the expansion of his business but also for settling his two sons. And, thus, eleven after his death (during the pendency of the instant revision petition) his requirement qua settling his two sons would not be extinguished, the Court opined. 

Further, the Court did not concur with the findings recorded by the courts below regarding the sons being very well settled based on the Income Tax Returns of Sandeep and Vinay wherein a net profit of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per annum was reflected. The Court rather added that both the sons were married and blessed with two children each and therefore, the landlord in the circumstances would definitely wish to settle his sons since their families have grown. It is but natural for any parent to see his children prosper and grow in their business or profession, as the case may be, and be well settled in their lives, the Bench asserted.

Additionally, Justice Kaul asserted that the tenant cannot certainly be allowed to have a say as to whether the earnings and the income of the landlord or his family members are sufficient or enough for them. 

“The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant as such cannot dictate his terms to the landlord. No doubt the object and purpose of the Act is to protect the tenants from arbitrary eviction on mere wishes or desires of the landlord, but at the same time the interest and requirement of the landlord is also to be safeguarded and cannot be overlooked. Equilibrium has to be achieved while adjudging the conflicting interest of the parties and while doing so the scales cannot be allowed to tilt in favour of one party to the detriment of the other”, opined the Bench. 

Reflecting on the plight of the landlord, the Court opined that it is evident that the tenant has enjoyed the fruits of his tenancy for a long time and it is now high time that the landlord who has been relegated to one corner of the shop starts enjoying it for his own benefit and his sons moreso when as already observed earlier both these sons are married and have children.

Moreover, the Bench added, 

“it needs to be emphasized that as and when eviction is sought by a landlord on the ground of bona fide necessity for expanding his business or even establishing a new business whether for himself or like in the case in hand, for settling his two sons, a presumption must be drawn that the need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide unless otherwise proved”, and that it would not be out of context to refer to the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Act which categorically protects the tenant in case after the tenant’s ejectment, the landlord fails to occupy the premises in question within the stipulated period of one year or rents it out to some other tenant. 

Also, while being mindful of the limited scope of its jurisdiction, the Court added that if the lower Court did not apply the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in the right and proper perspective, then the findings regarding bona fide requirements would cease to be a mere finding of fact and the superior court would be justified in upsetting the judgment/order in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 

Thus, while holding that the landlord duly satisfied the statutory requirement for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises and that the demised premises was indeed required by him for settling his two sons, the Court allowed the petition.