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.