Eviction Petition Ground Personal Necessity High Court

In this post we will discuss about Rent petition for eviction of tenant for personal necessity wherein The tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises on or before 31.01.2018 and handover the peaceful possession to the respondent/landlady by clearing outstanding arrears of rent/mesne profits if any.

Also Read- bonafide necessity of landlord doctypes: punjab – Indian Kanoon

Rent Petition

In this post we will discuss that the rent petition is dismissed and the eviction of the rented property is granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that the bona fide need of the landlady is clearly established to settle her unemployed son in business for which eviction was the only possible outcome. This judgment is speaking order and it is non reportable.

This view is taken from the latest judgment in the case of Hukam Chand vs Saroj Rani decided on 27 October, 2017. One can read the judgment here:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26886126/

Brief facts of the Case:

The landlady (respondent herein) sought eviction of the tenanted premises for her personal necessity i.e. for business purpose of her son, namely, Sandeep Kumar Mittal, to settle him as he was unemployed.
Non-payment of arrears of rent as a ground of eviction was given up with the arrears paid.
The ground that tenant had made material alterations in the demised premises without the consent and knowledge of the respondent- landlady was the third ground for seeking eviction. The last ground has failed before the Rent Controller, but the landlady Hukam Chand vs Saroj Rani on 27 October, 2017 was non-suited on the ground of personal requirement.
The respondent-landlady purchased the shop in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 29.09.2009 with sitting tenant, the present petitioner.

Also Read- Nasib Kaur vs Amarjit Kaur on 30 June, 2015 – Indian Kanoon

Issue before the Court:

(i): whether the son of the landlady for whose benefit the non-residential premises is sought to be got vacated, if not the landlord or the owner himself, is also required to plead the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and;

(ii) where son does not appear in the witness-box, while the mother does, what would be the fate of the ejectment petition, by omission to plead that the son does not own any other building in that urban area or landlady or her son for whose need ejectment was sought does not own any building in the same urban area, and thus learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this is a mandatory requirement if a petition is filed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlady for her son.

ALSO READ- EVICTION ORDER SET ASIDE BY PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Contention of the Respondent Landlady

On the ground of non-examination of person for whose need the demised premises is required, Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned senior counsel representing the respondent/landlady, contends that this is not a valid ground to non-suit the landlady. He relies on ruling in C. Karunakaran (D) by LRs Vs. T. Meenakshi, (2005) 13 SCC 99, wherein the Supreme Court held, while dealing with the provisions of Sections 11(1)(a), (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 that there is no such legal requirement so long as the landlord has stepped into the witness-box in support of the facts pleaded in the petition.

The Kerala and Haryana law on the point are pari materia and therefore the principle applies. He multiplies the principle by citing Single Bench judgment of this Court in S.P.Sethi Vs. R.R.Gulati & others, 2006 (3) PLR 93; 2006 (2) RCR (Rent) 205 to the same effect. It appears settled that mere non-examination of the son would not weaken the case of the respondent-landlady.

Also Read- High Court: Eviction for personal need won’t end with landlord’s death

The landlady is the best judge of her needs, which need or requirement has to be examined broadly and reasonably considering the social status of the parties and other requirements so long as the need pleaded is bona fide then there would arise a presumption in favour of the landlady when she assures the Court that she requires the building for her own occupation through her son to settle him in business.

Mr. Bahl next relies on Mehmooda Gulshan Vs. Javaid Hussain Mungloo, AIR 2017 SC 1047; 2017 (1) RCR (Rent) 273. In this case, eviction of the tenant was sought under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 for bona fide personal need of landlord for settling his unemployed son in business.

Also Read- Dr. J.S. Sodhi v. Mela Ram | Punjab & Haryana High Court .

The Supreme Court observed that the requirement of the landlord for ‘own occupation’ would also mean occupation by member of his family. In interpreting ‘own use’, the Court should adopt a practical and meaningful approach guided by the realities of life. It is not confined to mean actual physical user by 3 of 12 CR No.7382 of 2016 (O&M) landlord personally.

Besides affirming the law by interpreting the expression ‘own use’, the Supreme Court further held that non-examination of the son for whose benefit the premises is sought to be vacated is no ground to non- suit the landlord. Once there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence, such finding of fact cannot be reopened. In revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier dicta in C. Karunkaran (supra).

ALSO READ- HOW TO EVICT TENANT OUT OF RENTED PREMISES

Findings of the Court:

1.The mandatory requirement of the law in Section 13 was addressed to both the landlord and the tenant as a plea of offence and defence and when not taken by the tenant it is deemed to be waived. It is only when the provision is aimed at public interest as explained by the Supreme Court in a leading service matter in State Bank of Patiala & others Vs. S.K.Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669; (1996) 3 SCC 364, a decision expounding universal principle of prejudice, waiver and acquiescence, which principle has expanded the law pervading itself in other fields of litigation, then when the principles of acquiescence and waiver arise and the tenant will be seen to have parted away with the defence available to him in the law which was addressed to him but not public interest as a right which could be parted and surrendered

As far as the issue of other properties of the landlady or her son is concerned, it has been sufficiently explained that those businesses have closed down and in any case were not located in the urban area of municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, where the demised premises is situated. The bona fide need of the landlady is clearly established to settle her unemployed son in business for which eviction was the only possible outcome.

ALSO READ- TENANT EVICTION PETITION BY LANDLORD IN CHANDIGARH MOHALI

Held:

There is no scope for interference subsists and the petition is hereby dismissed.
The tenant is directed to vacate the demised premises on or before 31.01.2018 and handover the peaceful possession to the respondent/landlady by clearing outstanding arrears of rent/mesne profits if any.
The petitioner/tenant would furnish an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises on or before the date fixed as per this order before the Rent Controller/Executing Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, which period will be inclusive of the time allowed for vacation and delivery of possession of the shop in dispute.

Also Read- Landlord+personal+necessity | India Judgments

This post is written by Surbhi Yadav

For case specific advice, please contact Rent Lawyers of Punjab Haryana High Court in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Baltana Mullanpur etc for landlord Tenant Disputes , Rent Advice, Rent Matters in Appeal before Rent Controller Authority, Free Legal Advice related to Property Disputes, Ejectment of Tenant or forceful vacation of the rented premises by landlord.