Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
Smt. Heera Negi & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Madhu Kalra & Anr. – Respondents
CR-6947 of 2017(O&M)
Decided On : 05-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to the judgments dated 11.08.2016 and 02.08.2017, passed by the authorities below under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act'), whereby an order of eviction has been passed against the petitioners from the tenanted premises i.e. first floor of residential house No.1593, Sector- 7C, Chandigarh.
2. Briefly stating, the respondents claiming themselves to be owner/landlords of the demised portion being first floor of H. No. 1593, Sector-7C, Chandigarh, filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenants inter alia on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as their bona fide need. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that property in question was originally owned by one Jaswant Rai Marwah, which in turn inherited to his legal heirs. Subsequently, it was sold in favour of respondent-landlords vide registered sale deed dated 20.11.2014 and this fact was acknowledged by the UT, Chandigarh, Administration while issuing transfer letter dated 29.01.2015. It was further pleaded that despite been made aware of the factum of transfer of property in favour of respondent-landlords, the petitioner-tenants failed to discharge their liability towards payment of rent. It was also claimed that the entire demised premises, including tenanted portion, was required by the respondent-landlords for their bona fide necessity for shifting their residence therein. It was again pleaded that respondent-landlords were having old aged parents, besides two grown up children; while the ground floor was to be occupied by their parents; top floor by their children and first floor by respondent-landlords themselves. In the eviction petition, the respondent-landlords disclosed about following three other properties:-
| S.No. | Details of property | Explanation for not occupying the same. |
| 1 | H. No. 1174, Sector-8C, Chandigarh. | a. Situated on a busy main road, having excessive noise & vehicular pollution, which creates discomfort for the old aged parents besides lot of disturbance for the education of two children. |
|
|
| b. Under an agreement to sell with the purchasers, this property was to be vacated by the respondent-landlords on or before 31.05.2015. |
| 2 | H. No.1046, Sector-21B, Chandigarh. | Though jointly owned by the respondent-landlords, yet on account of litigation with Estate Office, UT Chandigarh, it could not be occupied besides being an old construction, respondent-landlords intended to demolish the same and reconstruct for the purposes of providing residents to two real brothers of respondent No.2, who were staying on rent but joint in business. |
| 3 | H. No.1061, Sector-21B, Chandigarh. | Jointly owned by respondent No.2 with her elder brother, namely, Harish Kalra in equal share, though two other brothers of respondent No.2, namely, Sunil Kalra and Rajiv Kalra were residing therein along with their families under some family arrangements. |
In addition, respondent-landlords also pleaded that they intended to repair and renovate all the three portions of the building (demised property), including the first floor, and were in the process of renovating the ground floor as well as second floor, at the time of filing of their eviction petition. In terms of the aforesaid facts, prayer was made for directing the petitioner-tenants to put the respondent-landlords in possession of demised portion, comprising of 'Entire First Floor of H.No. 1593, Sector-7C, Chandigarh', by filing eviction petition dated 27.04.2015.
3. Upon notice, petitioner-tenants appeared and contested the prayer made in the eviction petition having filed a joint written statement, wherein the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant was denied, besides even disputing the same with the erstwhile owner i.e. Mr. Atul Rai Marwah and Smt. Sunita Marw
The court affirmed the eviction order, establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and ruling that the landlords' need for the property was genuine, not mere desire.
Landlords are entitled to seek eviction based on personal necessity and change of user, and tenant's unauthorized use undermines property value, justifying eviction.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving landlord-tenant relationship, genuine need, and lack of alternate suitable accommodations in eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
The requirement of the landlord for eviction must be judged based on the circumstances at the time of filing the petition, and subsequent events do not affect the bonafide need established by the lan....
The eviction was upheld on grounds of bona fide requirement and established landlord-tenant relationship, negating the appellant's claims.
The landlord cannot be non-suited merely for want of necessary pleadings as regards ingredients under the Rent Act if those have been pleaded in rejoinder and proved on record in the evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
