Skip to main content

Landlord is the best judge of his own needs; tenant is no one to suggest use of premises in a particular manner

Cause Title : Narinder Kumar vs Kuldip Singh, CR No.3246 of 2022 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh

Date of Judgment/Order : 30.08.2022

Corum : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin

Citied:

  1. Inder Kaur vs. Bant Singh (now dead) through his LRs [2006 (6) RCR (Civil) 974]
  2. Hasmat Rai & Anr. vs. Raghunath Prashad [1981 (2) RCR (Rent) 401]
  3. Kawaljit Singh vs. Kulwant Kaur [2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 161]
  4. Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. vs. Naveen Maheshwari [2010 (1) SCC 503]
  5. Makhan Singh vs. Amar Kaur [2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 269]
  6. Dr. J.S. Sodhi vs. Mela Ram [2001 (2) RCR (Rent) 396]
  7. M/s Bajaj Associates & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. [2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 221]
  8. Varinder Singh & Anr. vs. Surinder Kaur [2020 (1) RCR (Rent) 265]
  9. Manohar Lal Sanghi vs. Jaswant Rai Ahuja [2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 47]
  10. Surinder Kumar vs. Balbir Raj Saini [2018 (3) Law Herald 2579]
  11. Manish Ralhan vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. [2020 (2) RCR (Rent) 476]
  12. Harjit Singh vs. Kuldeep Singh [2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 1026]
  13. Balbir Kaur & Ors. vs. Roop Lal & Ors. [2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 279]
  14. M/s Satpal Vijay Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar [2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 82]
  15. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh [2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 162]

Background

The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenant-petitioner against the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority respectively, whereby his ejectment has been ordered from the premises in dispute.

The Landlord-Respondent had filed for eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of personal necessity as the landlord-respondent wanted to expand his business which was being run from the front portion of the premises. The tenant-petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the rear portion of the ground floor measuring 40% of the area and had an entry from the backside. 

One of the points raised by the tenant-petitioner was that the landlord-respondent had filed an ejectment petition qua the second floor of the premises in question on the ground of personal necessity of his son which ejectment petition was allowed on 31.08.2015 and that the second floor had now been rented out again to some other persons. It was also the stand taken by the tenant-petitioner that the ejectment petition had been filed only in order to get the rent increased.

The contention of the landlord-respondent was that he is running a business of selling cement and only with a view to expand his business the back portion of the premise in question was required by the landlord-respondent who is running his business in the front portion, on the ground floor, of the premise in question. Further, the landlord-respondent contended that if at all anybody can raise a grouse qua letting out of the second floor, which was got vacated by the landlord-respondent, it would be the tenant who was evicted from the second floor and not the tenant-petitioner.

Judgment

The High Court observed that both the Authorities below have found that the requirement of the landlord-respondent was genuine and that he required the back portion of the premises in question for his personal bonafide necessity to expand his own business. The landlord-respondent in his affidavit  reiterated the grounds of personal requirement as taken in the ejectment petition. It was also stated in the affidavit that the second floor of the premises in question was not suitable for the requirement of the landlord-respondent.

Replying on several judgments including that of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that it is trite that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and qua the suitability of the premises and the tenant is no one to suggest that he should use the first floor or the second floor of the premises. Firstly, the grouse, if any, qua the premises not being utilized for the purpose for which it was got vacated could be raised by the person who was evicted from the said premises and it would not lie in the mouth of the present tenant- petitioner to raise the said objection. Secondly, the purpose for which the eviction of the tenant-petitioner has been sought in the present case is for expanding the business of dealing in cement which business is being carried on by the landlord-respondent in a portion of the ground floor of the premises in question. The second floor or the first floor of the premises in question could hardly be said to be suitable for expanding the said type of business. That being so, the argument of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner cannot be accepted.

The High Court also observed that the judgement in Inder Kaur (supra) would not apply in the present case inasmuch as in the said case the ejectment sought was from a residential premises and it was held that when a suitable accommodation in the same premises becomes available the landlord cannot be permitted to say that he would not accommodate himself in the same premises.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more