Usha Jindal vs Surjit Kaur (since deceased through L. Rs)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Usha Jindal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Surjit Kaur (since deceased through L.Rs) & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 488 of 2014
Decided On : 10-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Anupam Gupta Senior, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Akshay Jain, Mr. Gautam Pathania, Mr. Akshay Bhan Senior, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Sharma, Mr. Sahil Mehndiratta, Mr. Ashutosh Dhankar

Headnote:(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - Section 15(5) and 13(3)(a)(i) - Petition filed against lower appellate court's reversal of eviction order - Landlord's assertion of personal need for the premises for business use upheld, as tenant's objections regarding non-disclosure of other properties deemed irrelevant - The need was established despite allegations of bad faith and sham transactions. (Paras 10-19)

(B) Eviction Petitions - The burden of proof lies on the landlord to demonstrate personal need, not the bona fides of that need - The courts must not impose additional requirements not present in the statute. (Paras 11-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought eviction based on personal need for a business, which was contested by tenants claiming other properties and bad faith in the landlord's actions. The appellate authority initially reversed the eviction based only on evidential issues regarding the landlord’s disclosures.

Findings of Court:
The court reaffirmed the rights of landlords under the Rent Act, emphasizing that mere historic ownership status of other properties does not disqualify a landlord’s eviction request as non-bona fide.

Issues: Primary issues included whether the landlord had a legitimate personal need for the property and whether the appellate authority had correctly interpreted the statutory requirements for eviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that personal requirement under the Rent Act need not be substantiated with a proof of necessity, while also clarifying that past transactions by the landlord do not negate the basis for seeking eviction.

Result: Petition allowed, appellate order set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of landlord-tenant relationship and eviction petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history of eviction and appeal. (Para 5 , 6)
3. petitioners argue against findings of non-bonafide need. (Para 7)
4. respondents argue that landlord's need is not bonafide. (Para 8)
5. analysis of landlord’s arguments regarding requirements under rent act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. court clarifies landlord's rights regardless of acquisition reasons. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. court's final decision restoring eviction order. (Para 19 , 20)

Judgment

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (in short, the Rent Act) impugning the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh as Appellate Authority; vide which the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh; allowing the landlord’s petition for eviction, has been reversed; and along with certain other prayers.

2. The eviction petition was filed by landlord Raj Karan Jindal. However, before the decision of eviction petition he expired, and accordingly, now the proceedings are being carried out by his legal representatives. Even the original tenant expired during pendency of proceedings. So even she is being represented by her LRs. But for the purpose of the present petition, the parties would be referred to as they were described in the original eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller.

3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the landlord-Raj Karan Jindal asserted that he was the owner of Bay Shop No.32 Sector 15D, Chandigarh. This property was earlier owned by Smt. Krishna Devi. However, the said property had come to Raj Karan Jindal vide registered exchange deed dated 07.05.2005; in lieu of shop No.37, Sector 15D, Chandigarh. The said transfer was duly entered in the records of the Estate Office of Chandigarh. The shop No.32, Sector 15D was occupied by the tenant-respondent herein. However, the landlord needed the shop in question for establishing himself and his son in the business of small saving agency and the grocery shop. Therefore, the landlord filed petition for eviction of tenant from the said premises on the ground of personal use and occupation.

4. On being put to notice the tenants resisted the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord was having other properties in the urban area of Chandigarh. He had also not disclosed the fact that he was earlier occupying another property and he had vacated the same after coming into force of the Rent Act. Therefore, the landlord had not come to the court with clean hands. It was also asserted that need of the landlord was not bonafide and the same had been devised as a collusive exercise.

5. The parties led their respective evidence. After appreciating the evidence on record the Rent Controller passed order of eviction of the tenants. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the tenants preferred statutory appeal before the lower appellate authority. The appellate authority culled out the points for its consideration as given below:

(i) Whether the exchange deed dated 07.05.2005 is a sham transaction?

(ii) Whether petition is barred by the principle of res judicata?

(iii) Whether petition is bad for non-compliance of Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the Act?

(iv) Whether the landlord requires the demised premises for his personal bona fide need?

6. Out of the above points the appellate authority has decided the points No.(i) and (ii) in favour of the landlord, but point No. (iii) and (iv) have been decided against the landlord. Accordingly, the appeal has been allowed and the order of eviction has been set aside. Feeling aggrieved, against the same the LRs of landlord has preferred the present petition.

7. Arguing the case the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lower appellate court has gone totally wrong in law. It is only on the ground of alleged non-disclosure of