1. Revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, concerning eviction based on bonafide requirement and a notice for rent increase. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1586
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Surinder Singh Dhillon & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Vimal Jindal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5539-5540 of 2022 [@ SLP (C) Nos. 21200-21201 of 2021]
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Advocates appeared:
Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Advocate, Ms. Sruti Venugopal, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Deepak Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Arup Ratan Dutta Chaudhury, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Advocate, Ms. Sruti Venugopal, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Deepak Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Arup Ratan Dutta Chaudhury, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The notice served by the landlord to increase the rent is irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises, and the demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible under Section 6 of the Act.
Headnote:
Rent Restriction Act - Tenant's Revision Petition - Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 6 - The court held that the notice served by the landlord to increase the rent is irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises. The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible under Section 6 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The order dated 10.12.2021, in a revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was challenged. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to consider the effect of notice served by one of the landlords calling upon the tenant to increase the rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority by the High Court was unjustified in law. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court was set aside, and the Revision Petition was restored to its original number for decision by the High Court in accordance with law.
Issues: The main issue was the relevance of the notice served by the landlord to increase the rent in determining the bonafide requirement of the premises by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice served by the landlord to increase the rent is irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises. The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible under Section 6 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of, and any pending interlocutory application(s) were also disposed of.
Act Referred
EAST PUNJAB RENT RESTRICTION ACT: S.15(5), S.6
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that a demand for rent increase is irrelevant to the determination of the landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises. (Para 3 )
3. A notice to increase rent is irrelevant to bonafide requirement as Section 6 of the Act statutorily prohibits rent increases beyond the agreed amount. (Para 4 )
4. Demand for rent increase is irrelevant to bonafide requirement for eviction, as rent increases are statutorily prohibited under Section 6 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. (Para 4 )
5. High Court order set aside, Revision Petition restored, and the matter remanded to the High Court for decision in accordance with law. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Does a notice to increase rent affect the determination of a landlord's bonafide requirement for eviction?
No, a notice to increase rent has no bearing on the bonafide requirement, as landlords are statutorily prohibited from increasing rent in respect of tenanted premises under Section 6 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. (Para 4 )
7. Is a landlord permitted to demand rent beyond the agreed amount under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act?
No, the demand for rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible in terms of Section 6 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. (Para 4 )
8. Is remitting a case to an appellate authority to consider a rent increase notice justified when determining bonafide requirement?
No, such remittance is unjustified in law because the demand for rent increase is irrelevant to the determination of the landlord's bonafide requirement. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The order dated 10.12.2021 is under challenge in the present appeals, whereby in a revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 15(5) of the EAST PUNJAB RENT RESTRICTION ACT , 1949, the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to consider the effect of notice served by one of the landlords calling upon the tenant to increase the rent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have passed an order of eviction finding bonafide requirement of the landlord. The demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises by the appellant.
4. 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.
5. Therefore, remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority by the High Court was unjustified in law. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The Revision Petition is restored to its original number. The same shall be decided by the High Court in accordance with law.
6. In view of above, the appeals are disposed of.
7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
