Vimal Jindal vs Surinder Singh Dhillon

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.
Vimal Jindal – Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Singh Dhillon & Ors. – Respondents
CR NO. 2095 AND 2096 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Navroop Jawanda, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate; For the Respondents

Headnote:(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13(3)(a) - Eviction of tenant - Requirement of landlord for own use to be shown - Landlords established their bona fide requirement for starting a business, thereby justifying eviction. The tenant's claims of landlords not having clean hands dismissed; evidence did not support tenant's assertion. (Paras 10, 12, 20)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof lies on tenant to prove lack of bona fide requirement and not on landlord. Courts uphold landlord's right to initiate eviction regardless of previous negotiations to enhance rent. (Paras 11, 16, 20)

Facts of the case:
Landlords sought eviction to occupy commercial premises previously leased, arguing personal necessity under the Rent Act. The tenant disputed the claim, suggesting ulterior motives.

Findings of Court:
The evidence established that landlords required the premises for business use, and previous rent negotiations were irrelevant to the bona fide requirement.

Issues: Whether the landlords' requirement was bona fide and if the tenant's defenses were valid in light of the Rent Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal requirement of the landlord does not require evidence of necessity, only that they desire to utilize their property for business. Previous negotiations for rent increase do not negate the landlord's right to eviction.

Result: Civil revision petitions dismissed with tenant granted till 31.05.2023 for possession.

Table of Content
1. introduction and overview of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the tenancy and landlord's background. (Para 3)
3. tenant's contestation regarding landlord's bona fide. (Para 4)
4. presentation of evidence by both parties. (Para 5 , 6)
5. rent controller's ruling on landlord's bona fide need. (Para 7)
6. arguments from tenant and landlords on bona fide necessity. (Para 8 , 9)
7. legal provisions governing landlord's rights. (Para 10 , 11)
8. clarification on landlord’s requirement vs. necessity. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
9. tenant's claims on landlords’ alleged bad faith examined. (Para 16 , 17)
10. clarification of legal standards on landlord's claims. (Para 18 , 19)
11. limited scope of high court's review. (Para 20)
12. final ruling and order on eviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

This shall dispose of two civil revision petitions filed by the petitioner/tenant against the judgment dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, because both are arising between the same parties; though from the two different eviction petitions but relating to two different portions of the same premises. Civil Revision No.2095 of 2016 relates to eviction from Shop No.3015 out of the premises comprised in SCO No.3015-3016, Sector 22D, Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh and Civil Revision No.2096 of 2016 relates to the basement portion of the SCO No.3015-3016 mentioned above. Since the facts are also almost common, therefore, the same are being taken from Civil Revision No.2095 of 2016.

2. For the purpose of the present petitions, the parties would be referred to as they were described in the original eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller.

3. The brief facts, as pleaded in the present petitions, are that landlords had rented out the premises in question to a partnership firm constituted by the present-petitioner along with two other persons, namely, Virender Kumar Garg and Rajesh Kumar Goyal. The lease of the said tenancy was to expire in the year 2010. By afflux of time the lease stood terminated. Thereafter, the landlords filed eviction petition against the tenants, pleading therein that petitioners No.1 and 2 were the senior citizens. The shop in question was let out on 01.05.2000 at monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- per month, excluding the water and electricity charges and other taxes in case of Shop No.3015, and at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per month in case of basement area. It was further asserted that the landlord-petitioner No.1 had worked as Chief Executive Officer of Punjab Cooperative Union; Principal of Punjab Cooperative Training Institute; as General Manager of Punjab State Cooperative Stores and Managing Director of Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank, and therefore, had vast experience of business management. After retirement, the landlord-petitioner No.1 was in the business of establishing fruit gardens, vegetable seed; production and marketing, planting and managing soft wood popular plants and marketing them. However, thereafter he had disposed off his farms and the agriculture based enterprises and had got ample funds to start any other business or agency. The landlord-petitioner No.1 was a widely travelled person and had seen the lifestyles of various cultures throughout the world. Youngest daughter of the landlords-petitioner No.1 and 2 was unmarried. Likewise, landlord-petitioner No.3 had stayed in Australia for about three years and was well conversant with the lifestyle there. Due to family circumstances and requirements, the landlords-petitioners had decided to start their own business in tenanted premises, and therefore, they required the premises for their own personal use and occupation for starting their own business of display and sale of wooden furniture, furnishings, home decor and other consumables of varied nature and types. Since the premises comprised in commercial Sec