A landlord's bona fide need for premises can justify eviction, and tenants cannot dictate the suitability of a landlord's chosen location for their business.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 22.01.2025 vide which the ejectment petition filed by the respondent- landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “1973 Act”) has been allowed and the present petitioner has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question within three months from the date of the order. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 15.07.2025 vide which the Ist Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgments on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that it is the case of the respondent-landlord in paragraph 6 of the ejectment petition that he had a shop at Main bazaar, near Lal Kuan Chaunk, Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat (Nuh), which has been transferred in favour of his son Anshu Jain vide transfer deed dated 11.02.2020. It is argued that the respondent- landlord had filed the petition on 04.03.2020 and the said fact clearly shows that the transfer deed has been executed in favour of son only to make a ground for eviction and thus, the requirement projected by the respondent-landlord is not bonafide.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further raised another argument for setting aside the impugned judgments and for the said purpose has referred to paragraph 4 sub clause (ii) of the eviction petition to highlight the fact that although it is the case of the respondent-landlord that he is working with his brother Subhash Chand Jain who has Halwai shop but actually it is the respondent, who is running the said Halwai shop, which is situated at Lal Kuan Chauk, Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat. It is submitted that in fact the brother of the respondent i.e., Subhash Chand Jain has nothing to do with the said shop and said shop is exclusively being managed by the respondent and the averments made in paragraph 4 sub clause (ii) of the ejectment petition are false and incorrect. It is further submitted that since the respondent has another premises in which he can run the Halwai shop and is in fact running the Halwai shop in the same, thus, the requirement projected by the respondent for running the Halwai shop in the shop in question is not bonafide and thus, the ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, has submitted that the present revision petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed and that the judgments passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Ist Appellate Court deserve to be upheld. It is submitted that the respondent-landlord had fairly disclosed his business as well as the shop, which has been transferred by the respondent in favour of his son, in which his son has been keeping building and construction material and it is the son who is in possession of the same. It is further submitted that the said shop which has been transferred in favour of his son was situated at Lal Kuan Chauk, Ferozepur Jhirka whereas the shop in question is situated at Mahavir Marg Road, Ferozepur Jhirka and it is the specific case of the respondent-landlord in the ejectment petition that Mahavir Marg Road is the most suitable place for carrying out the Halwai business as Mahavir Marg Road market is the main market of Ferozepur Jhirka and it connects the National Highway 248A with Ferozepur Jhirka town. It is further submitted that the other shop where the respondent is carrying on his busi