1. Tenant's revision against concurrent eviction orders on grounds of bona fide requirement and dilapidated structure under Rent Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 22243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mandeep Pannu, J
Shanti Parkash – Appellant
Versus
Jai Bhagwan Mittal – Respondent
CR-7731-2025 (O&M)
Important Points
A landlord's bona fide requirement for reconstruction is determined by their genuine intention, and a court-appointed Local Commissioner's report on a building's dilapidated state carries high evidentiary value unless countered by expert testimony.
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973: S.13
Headnote
(A) Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13 - Eviction of tenant - Bona fide requirement for reconstruction - Dilapidated structure - The landlord is the best judge of his own need, and neither the tenant nor the courts can dictate how or in what manner the landlord should utilise his property. (Paras 13, 30)
(B) Evidence - Court-appointed Local Commissioner's report - A report prepared by an impartial government officer regarding the structural condition of a building carries significant evidentiary value and, unless convincingly rebutted by expert evidence, can form the basis for a finding of dilapidation. (Paras 14, 31)
Facts of the case:
The respondent-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a shop in Jind on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement to reconstruct an integrated block of five shops to establish a hotel and restaurant for his son, Rahul Mittal. The tenant contested the petition, arguing that the son is permanently settled in Delhi running a shoe industry, the landlord owns other suitable commercial buildings, and the building is not dilapidated. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority both ruled in favor of the landlord, upholding the eviction order.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the requirement for reconstruction of the integrated block was genuine. The son's current residence in Delhi does not negate the intention to start a business in Jind. Furthermore, the Local Commissioner's report established that the building was dangerous and unfit for habitation, and the tenant failed to produce any expert evidence to contradict these findings. The other properties mentioned by the tenant were agricultural or unsuitable alternatives.
Issues: Whether the landlord's requirement for the demised premises was bona fide and whether the premises were dilapidated and unsafe for human habitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the genuineness of the intention to use a property is what matters for bona fide requirement, not the current residence of the intended occupant. Additionally, a neutral Local Commissioner's report on building condition is binding unless rebutted by technical expert testimony.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) Evidence - Court-appointed Local Commissioner's report - A report prepared by an impartial government officer regarding the structural condition of a building carries significant evidentiary value and, unless convincingly rebutted by expert evidence, can form the basis for a finding of dilapidation. (Paras 14, 31)
Facts of the case:
The respondent-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a shop in Jind on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement to reconstruct an integrated block of five shops to establish a hotel and restaurant for his son, Rahul Mittal. The tenant contested the petition, arguing that the son is permanently settled in Delhi running a shoe industry, the landlord owns other suitable commercial buildings, and the building is not dilapidated. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority both ruled in favor of the landlord, upholding the eviction order.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the requirement for reconstruction of the integrated block was genuine. The son's current residence in Delhi does not negate the intention to start a business in Jind. Furthermore, the Local Commissioner's report established that the building was dangerous and unfit for habitation, and the tenant failed to produce any expert evidence to contradict these findings. The other properties mentioned by the tenant were agricultural or unsuitable alternatives.
Issues: Whether the landlord's requirement for the demised premises was bona fide and whether the premises were dilapidated and unsafe for human habitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the genuineness of the intention to use a property is what matters for bona fide requirement, not the current residence of the intended occupant. Additionally, a neutral Local Commissioner's report on building condition is binding unless rebutted by technical expert testimony.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjiv Gupta, Aayush Bansal
For the Respondents: Kunal Dawar, Abhinav Gupta, Jatinder Kansal, Sourav Bajaj
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjiv Gupta, Aayush Bansal
For the Respondents: Kunal Dawar, Abhinav Gupta, Jatinder Kansal, Sourav Bajaj
Table of Contents
2. Tenant alleged no bona fide requirement and concealment of properties; landlord asserted genuine need for son's hotel business and structural dilapidation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
3. Landlord's requirement bona fide and premises dilapidated; no concealment of suitable alternative premises; concurrent findings not perverse. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Landlord's bona fide requirement not defeated by son's current residence elsewhere; tenant must prove vacant suitable alternative premises. (Para 29 , 30 )
5. Civil revision petition dismissed in limine; concurrent eviction orders upheld. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. Does a landlord's bona fide requirement fail if the beneficiary relative resides outside the town?
No. The Rent Act does not oblige a landlord's son to abandon current residence before planning a business; current residence is not determinative of genuine intention. (Para 30 )
7. Can a court rely on a Local Commissioner's report of dilapidation without chemical or structural testing?
Yes, if uncontroverted by expert evidence. Courts routinely rely on such reports, especially when the opposing party produces no technical rebuttal. (Para 31 )
8. Does mere ownership of other properties by the landlord defeat a claim of bona fide requirement?
No, unless the tenant proves the landlord actually occupies a similar suitable alternative premises. Ownership of agricultural land or transferred family properties is not sufficient. (Para 29 )
9. Must a landlord produce an approved building plan before seeking eviction for demolition and reconstruction?
No. The first step is to get the premises vacated and demolished; only thereafter can the landlord approach authorities for sanction. (Para 16 )
10. Is a landlord required to prove the beneficiary son's prior training or qualification for the intended business?
No. The law requires only a genuine desire to use the premises; prior training is not a prerequisite for bona fide requirement. (Para 32 )
1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 31.05.2023 and by the learned Appellate Authority, Jind, vide order dated 23.09.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Jind vide order dated 31.05.2023 and by the learned Appellate Authority, Jind, vide order dated 23.09.2025, whereby 23.09.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.
Brief Facts
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent in the present revision petition (petitioner-landlord before the Rent Controller) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the tenants from a shop situated opposite Old Bus Stand, near Manju Hotel, Jind. According to the landlord, the shop was initially let out According to the landlord, the shop was initially let out in the year 1975 to one mohan lal son of tatra chand at a monthly rent of ₹120/-. Upon his death, his son Shanti Prakash continued in occupation as a legal heir. The current rate of rent is ₹360/- per month.The allegation of the landlord is that the tenants are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2007, and therefore, eviction is sought on the ground of non-payment.
3. It is further the case of the landlord that the shop in question is extremely old and has become dilapidated, with several cracks developing in the structure. The landlord has also pleaded bona fide requirement, asserting that he requires the premises for his son Rahul Mittal, who intends to start a hotel and restaurant business. The landlord owns five shops in total, one of which is in his own possession while the other four are with different tenants, and separate eviction petitions have been filed against each of them. The landlord proposes to vacate all five shops and reconstruct a new building over the entire 315 square yards for running the proposed hotel and restaurant business. He has further pleaded that his son Rahul has acquired experience in hotel management from Hotel Pelican, Ghaziabad and has no other business at present. The landlord claims to have requested the tenants to vacate the premises but without success, leading to the filing of the present eviction petition.
4. Upon notice, the tenants appeared and filed a joint written statement raising several preliminary objections. They contended that they have no alternative accommodation for their livelihood and that the petition is false, frivolous and filed without any bona fide requirement. The tenants also alleged that the ground of non-payment is not available to the landlord as they had already deposited/paid rent on 23.01.2017. They denied that the shop is damaged or unfit for use and claimed that they are running their business smoothly in the premises. It was further pleaded that the landlord's son Rahul Mittal is already self-employed, married and residing in Delhi, where he is allegedly running an industry related to shoe manufacturing. The tenants alleged that the landlord had concealed ownership of several other commercial properties in Jind, and that two shops had been recently transferred to the landlord's son Bhaskar Mittal and to his brother Sushil Kumar only to create a false ground of need. They also denied the feasibility of constructing a hotel on 315 square yards and asserted that the petition is devoid of merit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner (landlord) is entitled to the ejectment of the tenants from the shop stated in the petition? OPR
2. Whet
