LI Network
Published on: January 3, 2024 at 00:00 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently in a ruling affirming a landlord’s prerogative to initiate a personal enterprise within their property as desired.
In a civil revision petition challenging the judgments of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, and the Rent Controller’s eviction order, the High Court upheld the landlord’s right to establish a business within his property.
Justice Amarjot Bhatti emphasized the landlord’s entitlement to start a business in his premises, especially to secure his grown sons’ future. The Court found the landlord’s requirement for the tenanted shop to be genuine and justified.
The case involved a tenant’s petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking to avoid eviction from a shop on Dadwan Road Dhariwal, Tehsil, and District Gurdaspur.
The landlord claimed ownership of the shop, rented by the tenant for nearly 20 years at Rs. 1,000 per month. The eviction was sought due to the tenant’s non-payment of rent since January 2000, and the landlord’s need for personal use and his sons’ dependence on the property.
The tenant aimed to operate a business involving himself and his sons in the same shop, which was part of the landlord’s property. Despite numerous requests, the tenant did not clear the rent arrears or vacate the premises, resulting in the landlord filing an eviction petition.
The High Court highlighted the absence of rent payment by the tenant since January 2000, noting that the relationship between the landlord and tenant was disputed before the Rent Controller.
The Court stated that the tenant’s reliance on rent receipts was unreliable as they pertained to two different shops.
Additionally, the Court highlighted the landlord’s genuine intent to utilize the shop for personal needs and to settle his sons.
The Court acknowledged the landlord’s plan to establish a departmental store or mall, confirmed by witness testimony, including that of his son.
The High Court concluded that the landlord’s requirement was reasonable and valid, thus dismissing the civil revision and affirming the lower courts’ decisions.
