Demand Of Increase Of Rent Is Wholly Irrelevant To Determine 'Bonafide Requirement' Of A Landlord : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises of a landlord.

In this case, Surinder Singh ("landlord") had leased two separate premises to the Vimal Jindal, for a period of 10 years. As the period of lease had to expire on April 30, 2010, Surinder Singh ("tenant") sent a notice to him with a request to vacate the tenanted premises. One of the landlords on February 19, 2010 sent another notice calling upon the tenant to discuss the matter with his partners and let the landlords know if their offer for the payment of prevailing market rent is acceptable to the tenant and his partners or not. On May 25, 2010, the landlord filed the eviction petition.

The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had passed an order of eviction finding bonafide requirement of the landlord. While setting aside these orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, allowing revision petition filed [under under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ] by the tenant, directed the Appellate Authority to re-decide the appeal after considering the effect of notice served by one of the landlords calling upon the tenant to increase the rent. This was held while considering the tenant's contention that the rent petition has been filed only because the tenant did not agree to the unreasonable demands of the landlords and thus the eviction petition was a result of his denial for the excess payment of the rent to the landlords.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and JB Pardiwala observed:

"The demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises by the appellant. We find that even if a notice is served upon by a landlord to increase the rent, that notice has nothing to do with the bonafide requirement as the landlord is statutorily prohibited from increasing the rent in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of Section 6 of the Act. The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible in terms of Section 6 of the Act."

The court therefore set aside the order of the High Court remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority. It restored the Revision Petition and directed the High Court to decide it afresh.

Case details

Surinder Singh Dhillon vs Vimal Jindal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713 | CA 5539-5540 OF 2022 | 22 August 2022 | Justices Hemant Gupta and JB Pardiwala

Headnotes

East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ; Section 13 - Demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises of a landlord.

East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ; Section 6- The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible.

Click here to Read/Download Order