Tenant Cannot Dictate Adequacy Of Space Required By Landlord For Proposed Business Venture: Supreme Court Upholds Summary Eviction Order

A tenant cannot dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate, the Supreme Court observed while upholding an eviction order passed in favour of an NRI landlord under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

In this case, the landlords moved Rent Controller seeking immediate recovery of possession of the rented premises by invoking the provisions of Section 13B read with Section 18A of the Act. The landlord claimed that he desires to start the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of furniture and for the proposed business, the property already in possession of the landlord, is insufficient. Rent Controller allowed their petition. Allowing the revision petition filed by tenants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the eviction order and directed the Rent Controller to decide the case with grant of leave to contest to the tenants.

In appeal before the Apex Court, the tenants did not challenge the NRI status of the landlord but they contended  that the space available with the landlord would be adequate for the proposed furniture business and there is no need to seek eviction of the respondents, from their respective shops. In this context, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed:

"On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the earlier eviction proceeding, the concerned vacant shops under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed, but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space under their possession is insufficient for the proposed furniture business. On the age aspect, it is seen that the respondents are also senior citizens but that has not affected their desire to continue their business in the tenanted premises. Therefore, age cannot be factored against the landlords in their proposed business."

In this case, the Rent Controller had denied the right to contest to the tenants taking note of the fact the landlord had returned to India and required the premises for his bona fide need. Upholding the summary proceedings under Section 13B for recovery of possession, the bench said:

The special procedure for NRI landlord was deliberately designed by the Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted premises for bona fide need of the NRI landlords and such legislative intent to confer the right of summary eviction, as a one time measure cannot be frustrated, without strong reason. Having regard to the contentions raised by the tenants to oppose the Section 13B applications, we feel that the tenants have failed to provide adequate reason to secure the right to contest the summary proceedings and they should not be allowed to widen the scope of the limited defense under Section 13B. To fulfil their bona fide requirement, the landlords have availed only one opportunity under the summary procedure of Section 13B and their business requirement is not seriously contested by the tenants. Moreover, the required safeguard measures to prevent misuse of the special provisions are also found to be satisfied and that is why the leave to contest was denied to the tenants.

CASE: BALWANT SINGH @ BANT SINGH vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR [SLP (C) Nos. 10793-10794/2020]

CORAM: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy

COUNSEL: Sr. Adv Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv Manoj Swarup

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 53

Click here to Read/Download Order