In a key ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed that tenants cannot dictate to landlords on the issue of bonafide necessity. The judgment was delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta in CR No. 3388 of 2024 and CR No. 3415 of 2024, in which the Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by tenants Satish Kumar Soni (through his legal representatives) and Sudarshan Sharma. Both tenants had challenged the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority in Ludhiana.
The Court upheld the eviction orders in favor of the landlady, Dimpy Malhotra, allowing her to reclaim possession of two commercial shops located at B-XIX/392 Maharani Jhansi Road, Ghumar Mandi, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, citing bonafide necessity.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around two adjoining shops in Ludhiana, rented to the tenants by the previous owners. The landlady, Dimpy Malhotra, became the owner of the property through two sale deeds executed in August 1995. After acquiring ownership, Malhotra filed for the eviction of the tenants in March 2010, citing grounds including non-payment of rent, the premises becoming unfit for human habitation, and her bonafide necessity for the shops to open a departmental store.
Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ruled in favor of Malhotra, ordering the eviction of the tenants based on her bonafide need for the premises. Dissatisfied, the tenants filed revision petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the findings of the lower courts.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Bonafide Necessity: The central issue in the case was whether the landlady’s requirement of the premises to set up a departmental store was bonafide. The tenants argued that the landlady’s projected need was fanciful, and that she already owned other properties.
2. Res Judicata: The tenants contended that an earlier eviction petition filed in 2001 had been dismissed, and therefore, the present petitions should be barred under the principle of res judicata.
3. Concealment of Other Properties: The tenants alleged that the landlady had concealed information about other properties she owned, thus challenging the legitimacy of her claim of bonafide necessity.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Deepak Gupta rejected all the contentions raised by the tenants and upheld the eviction orders, stressing that the landlord’s bonafide need for the premises could not be dictated by the tenants. Citing several precedents, the Court emphasized that once the landlord asserts bonafide necessity, the presumption should be that the need is genuine unless proven otherwise.
In addressing the issue of res judicata, the Court clarified that the bonafide necessity of a landlord is a recurring cause of action. The dismissal of an earlier eviction petition in 2001 did not bar the present petitions. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.S. Sundaraju Chettiar vs. M.R. Ramchandra Naidu, which held that a fresh eviction petition can be filed if the landlord establishes a new or genuine necessity.
On the issue of alleged concealment of other properties, the Court observed that the landlady had sufficiently demonstrated that she did not own or possess any other non-residential or commercial properties within the municipal limits of Ludhiana. The Court stated:
“Mere ownership of other properties does not make any difference. Section 13 of the Act uses the terms ‘Use and Occupation’ and not ‘Ownership’. Therefore, on this ground alone, no concealment can be alleged.”
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that tenants cannot question the landlord’s future plans for the property, such as whether the landlord will start a business in the vacated premises. Citing the case Balbir Kaur vs. Roop Lal, the Court held that the landlord’s assertion of bonafide necessity should be accepted, and the tenants cannot speculate about the success of the landlord’s proposed business venture.
Important Observations by the Court
Justice Deepak Gupta underscored the principle that:
“It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord about her/his bonafide necessity. If a landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand the business, his need must be presumed as bonafide.”
This key observation formed the basis of the Court’s dismissal of the tenants’ petitions.
Final Decision and Order
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed both petitions and directed the tenants to vacate the shops by November 30, 2024. The Court further ordered that the tenants clear all arrears of rent at the last agreed rate and pay user charges in advance until the eviction date. The judgment also imposed mesne profits of ₹1 lakh per month from December 2024 onwards if the tenants failed to vacate the premises by the specified date.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioners: Satish Kumar Soni (through his LRs) and Sudarshan Sharma.
– Respondent: Dimpy Malhotra.
– Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta.
– Counsel for Petitioners: Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Mr. N.C. Kinra, Mr. Harsh Kinra.
– Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal (Senior Advocate) with Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Mr. Vishal Pundir, and Ms. Aashna Aggarwal.
