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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more