Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord About 'Bonafide Necessity', Landlord's Need Must Be Presumed Bonafide: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld eviction of tenants on the ground of "bonafide need" of the landlady observing that, the tenant cannot dictate what should be her bonafide need.
Justice Deepak Gupta said, "It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord about her/ his bonafide necessity. If a landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand the business, his need must be presumed as bonafide."
The Court rejected the argument that the landlady has grown old belonging to an affluent family and her need of starting business in the shop is "fanciful."
"Simply because the landlady – respondent has grown old, as is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be a ground to reject the ejectment petitions, once she has proved her bonafide necessity," observed the Court.
The petitions were filed by the two tenants challenging the ejectment orders passed against them by Rent Controller.
Two Shops were given on rent to the tenants prior to 1995 on monthly rent of Rs.700. Ejectment of the two tenants was sought in 2010 on the ground of non-payment of rent, the premises having become unfit & unsafe for human habitation, change of user and bonafide necessity of the landlady. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment only on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlady and that finding was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Counsel for the tenants argued that earlier petition for ejectment filed in 2001 on the ground of non-payment of rent was rejected by the Rent Controller, hence the present plea is ought to be rejected.
After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "Merely because the earlier ejectment petitions filed in 2001 were dismissed in 2005, cannot be ground to reject the subsequent petitions, which have been filed in March, 2010 i.e. more than 08 years from the date of filing of the earlier ejectment petitions, though of course, it is required to be seen that landlord has been able to make out a case for ejectment in the subsequent proceedings."
Furthermore, the Court referred to Apex Court's decision in M/s Rahabhar Productions Put. Ltd. V. Rajendra K. Tandon, 1998(1) [Rent Control Reporters 482], to underscore, "bona fide need" should be genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. It was also indicated that landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has, inevitably, a subjective element in it.
The Court noted that tenants were unable to rebut the evidences of the landlady that the shop was required by her to run a business in a centrally located place.
Justice Gupta also highlighted that the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority, only if it finds that the said finding on the question of bonafide requirement is either perverse or arbitrary, or there is illegality or perversity of such a nature that it demands interference.
In the light of the above, the Court directed to vacate their respective demised shops on or before November 30.
Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for the pe oner in CR-3388 of 2024.
Mr. N.C. Kinra and Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocates for the pe oner in CR No.3415 of 2024.
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ni n Kaushal, Mr. Vishal Pundir and Ms. Aashna Aggarwal, Advocates for the respondent(s).
Title: Satish Kumar Soni through his LRs v. Dimpy Malhotra and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 293