Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI
Chhiddi Lal – Appellant
Versus
Murari Lal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Archana Puri, J.
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 30.08.2008 passed by learned Appellate Authority, whereby, the judgment of dismissal dated 22.05.2007 passed by learned Rent Controller, was reversed and thereupon, eviction of the petitioners-tenants, from the demised premises, was ordered.
2. The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-
It was pleaded case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners-tenants are statutory tenants under them, at a monthly rent of Rs.300/-, in the shop, as detailed in the site plan, annexed with the petition. They claimed arrears of rent @ Rs.300/- per month, for the period 01.06.1999 to 31.01.2001, to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. Besides the same, also it was pleaded that there is bonafide requirement of the demised shop for the running of business of cloth merchant by Mahesh Kumar, who is a graduate and unemployed.
3. Reply was filed, wherein, preliminary objections were taken, thereby, disputing the maintainability of the petition and also challenged the locus standi of the landlords to file the eviction petition and that the eviction petition is false, frivolous and vexatious, which has been moved,
The landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use, once established, justifies eviction, while the tenant must prove valid reasons for non-occupation.
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 crucial date for deciding the bona fide requirement of the landlord is the date of filing of the petition.
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
