Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Sanatan Dharam Mandir – Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. By way of the instant judgment, this Court proposes to decide the afore-titled revision petitions. Since the issue involved in both revision petitions is the same, they are being decided by way of this common judgment. Facts shall essentially be derived from CR-947-2016, though reference to the facts out of CR-7225-2017 shall duly be given wherever necessary.
2. The petitioner-landlord (Sanatan Dharam Mandir) instituted eviction petitions against its tenants, namely, Satish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar, under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Rent Act’), for their eviction from two shops, each of the tenants being in occupation of one shop [fully described in the eviction petition(s)], situated at Railway Road, Narwana (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the demised premises’).
3. In Satish Kumar’s case, the case set up was that Satish Kumar had taken the demised premises on rent and had initially been running a shop in the name and style of Goyal Radios. The rate of rent was claimed to be Rs.1,700/- per month. It was alleged that he had been in arrears of rent since 01.05.2012 and had sublet the demised premis
The landlord's bonafide necessity for business expansion can justify an eviction order, and the tenant's objections must be supported by evidence to rebut the landlord's case.
Bona fide requirement for eviction is determined by the landlord's genuine need, not dictated by tenant's preferences.
Landlords have the right to seek eviction for bona fide personal use, and tenants cannot dictate property utilization.
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
