While reiterating that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement, Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition of the tenants after noting that the landlord had brought convincing evidence to prove that he had a bona fide need for the demised shop.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice H.S Madaan observed that “Rent Controller, Ambala 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”.

Advocate Avnish Mittal appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate Kanwaljit Singh appeared for the Respondent.

In a brief background, 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 their ejectment from the demised shop. The Petitioner claimed that he required the shop in question for his personal use and occupation. The Petitioner also sought ejectment of Respondents alleging that they had created nuisance in the locality. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents were in arrears of rent for the period from January, 2013 onwards, which they had not paid despite repeated requests. The Ambala Rent Controller dismissed the petition. However, on appeal, the District Judge directed the Respondents to hand over the vacant possession of the premises under their tenancy to the Petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

After considering the submission, the High Court observed 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, and he cannot be advised to find some other place for expansion of his business.

The High Court also 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 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 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 stated that there was nothing to show that those were constructed for residential purpose and were used as such at any point of time.

Finding absence of any mala fide intention of landlord to enhance the rent or some other extraneous consideration, the Bench clarified that “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”.

Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the revision petition.

Cause Title: Krishan Lal and Ors. v. Ashok Jain [Neutral Citation: 2023: PHHC: 081279]

Click here to read/download the Order



Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice H.S. Madaan

Pankaj Bajpai