Running A Business From Tenanted Premises Cannot Defeat Landlord’s Bonafide Requirement To Evict For Own Livelihood: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that a landlord’s need to secure his own premises for establishing a livelihood cannot be negated merely because he is operating a shop from a rented location, noting that such circumstances do not undermine the genuineness of his claim for eviction.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord’s bona fide requirement for non-residential premises cannot be rejected on the ground that he is currently earning a livelihood from a shop situated in a rented building.
The Court was hearing revision petitions filed by the landlord challenging orders refusing eviction under the applicable rent control statute. The petitions were based on the ground that the premises were required for starting and running a business to sustain the landlord and his family.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, while deciding the matter, observed: “It is more than settled that the landlord is best judge to decide the utility of premises to enhance/augmentation of his income and tenant cannot dictate the terms with respect to the suitability and utility of premises which is to be adjudged by the landlord. Therefore, running a business from a tenanted premises cannot a ground to reject the plea of bonafide requirement of landlord”.
Senior Advocate Devyani Sharma represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sunil Mohan Goel represented the respondents.
Background
The landlord had sought eviction of the tenants from two adjacent non-residential premises, asserting that he had completed his education and was unable to secure stable employment.
He argued that he was attempting to run a small business from a rented shop located in a rural panchayat area and required the premises in question, situated in a main commercial locality, to establish a viable business for maintaining himself and his family.
The tenants opposed the eviction petitions, contending that the landlord was already engaged in business at the rented shop and that his family, particularly his mother, had adequate financial means.
The Rent Controller dismissed the petitions, holding that the landlord’s requirement was not bona fide. The Appellate Authority affirmed this view.
The landlord thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Himachal Pradesh High Court analysed the statutory provisions governing eviction for bona fide use and observed that the landlord is the best judge of his own need. It held that the authorities below had erred in treating the existence of a rented shop as a factor negating the landlord’s requirement.
The Court noted that the rented shop was situated in an area with limited commercial prospects compared to the premises owned by the landlord.
The Bench further held that the landlord could not depend indefinitely on the pension of his mother, observing that “pension cannot be treated sufficient or alternative means to meet the requirement of family particularly on enlargement of family as on enlargement of family, the amount shall also be required for upbringing and education of children of petitioner”.
The Court applied the principles laid down in earlier decisions concerning bona fide requirement, reiterating that a tenant cannot dictate where the landlord must conduct his business and that financial assistance from family members cannot be treated as a bar to seeking eviction for personal use.
The Court emphasised that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had misapplied the settled principles of landlord-tenant law. It was observed that the landlord’s need was genuine and that the premises in the central market area had significantly greater commercial potential for sustaining a livelihood.
The Bench concluded that the lower forums had taken into account irrelevant considerations and ignored the material supporting the bona fide requirement.
Conclusion
Allowing the revision petitions, the High Court set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and directed eviction, holding that the landlord had established a bona fide requirement for starting and sustaining a business to support himself and his family.
Cause Title: Vineet v. Vishal Sohal & Vineet v. Dinesh Kapoor (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:38093)
Appearances
Petitioner: Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Srishti Negi, Advocate
Respondents: Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Parar Dhaulta and Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocates