Landlord Has Every Right To Start His Own Business In His Premises As Per His Desire: Punjab And Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that the landlord has every right to start his own business in his own premises as per his desire.
The Court was dealing with a civil revision petition filed by a man for setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur and ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller alleging that the same were based on conjectures and surmises and non-appreciation of material evidence.
A Single Bench of Justice Amarjot Bhatti observed, “By no means it can be said that the requirement of Sucha Singh is unreasonable or not genuine. The landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) has every right to start his own business in his own premises as per his desire. It is his moral duty to settle down his grown up sons during his lifetime. Therefore, the requirement of landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) for the tenanted shop is bona fide.”
Advocate R.K. Arya appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Naresh Jain appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Facts of the Case -
The respondent i.e., the tenant filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for his ejectment from the shop situated at Dadwan Road Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The petitioner i.e., the landlord submitted that the shop in question was owned by him which was in occupation of the tenant for the last about 20 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-. The tenant was liable to be ejected from the shop on the ground of non-payment of rent since January 2000 and that he required the shop for his own use and occupation as well as for his sons who were dependent on him.
The tenant wanted to engage himself and his sons in the business and the said shop was the part and parcel of the building owned by him. The landlord requested the tenant to pay the arrears of rent but he put off the matter on one excuse or the other. He also asked him several times to vacate the demised shop and to hand over the vacant possession but he refused to do so and ultimately, the ejectment petition was filed by the landlord.
The High Court after hearing both parties said, “Sucha Singh - respondent (petitioner in the main case) filed this ejectment petition on two grounds and one of the ground was that the tenant was in arrears of rent since January, 2000. It is matter of record that no rent has been paid by the present petitioner since January, 2000. He claimed to be in possession of shop in question for the last about 36/37 years. Sucha Singh respondent (petitioner in the main case) filed the ejectment petition against the present petitioner that he is in arrears of rent since January 2000. The perusal of impugned judgment dated 01.07.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Authority indicates that during the pendency of the appeal additional issue 1-B was framed as to whether the tenant is in arrears of rent.”
The Court further noted that before the Rent Controller, the relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed, as a result neither any issue was framed nor any finding came on record. It said that the rent receipts relied upon by the tenant cannot be safely relied upon because they pertained to two shops.
“The learned Rent Controller returned the finding in the ejectment order dated 08.02.2023 that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and despite this there was no effort on the part of present petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent. … The learned counsel for the landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) pointed out that the petitioner/tenant is in possession of the shop since then without payment of any rent”, it also said.
The Court observed that the Appellate Authority rightly concluded that the tenant was liable to be evicted from the shop on account of non-payment of arrears of rent.
“The landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) also filed this ejectment petition on the ground that he requires the shop for his personal use and necessity as well as to settle down his sons namely Ajay Paul Singh and Montek Singh. The landlord wanted to construct a departmental store/mall by eviction of all the tenants to start his business along with his sons. The version put forward by Sucha Singh PW-3 is also confirmed by one of his son Ajay Paul Singh as PW-5. He also explained that they had already received possession of two shops from the tenants and regarding one shop execution proceedings were going on”, noted the Court.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the requirement of the landlord is reasonable and genuine.
Accordingly, the High Court declined the civil revision and upheld the findings of the lower courts.
Cause Title- Balkar Singh v. Sucha Singh (Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:165665)
