Bonafide need

Punjab Rent Act -- NRI Landlord – Onus of proof -- Court shall presume that the landlord’s need as pleaded in the petition, is genuine and bona fide -- However, the tenant would be entitled to prove that in fact, in law, the requirement of the landlord is not genuine -- A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Retired employee -- Commercial building –Petition was filed u/s 13-A, yet, the trial of the case proceeded as if it was a petition u/s 13 – Contention that the petition having been styled u/s 13-A could have only been answered qua the premises which were residential in nature – Now there is no distinction between residential and commercial premises in so far as the bona fide need of a landlord is concerned -- If the respondent wanted to get the demised premises vacated and that too in the evening of his life, it can hardly be said that need was not bona fide. Dr. Madan Lal v. Rattan Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 115 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Contention that landlord do not intend to use the demised premises as has been expressed in the petition are concerned, the tenant always has a remedy under the law in the event of the building for not being put to the use for which it has been got vacated, but the petitioner cannot certainly dictate that the need of the respondent is not bona fide. Sat Parkash Chaudhary v. Kewal Krishan Malhotra, 2011(1) L.A.R. 66 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Husband of the Landlady is a hawker engaged in selling of bangles --  Demised premises is a shop having dimension of 7' x 10' which prima facie suggests that the same is sufficient for the husband of the Landlady to carry on his activities -- Tenant is directed to be ejected. Kamaldeep Kaur v. Bharat Bushan alias Bharti, 2011(1) L.A.R. 133 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Landlord in the evening of their lives can express a desire to settle down in the demised premises and the need cannot be termed to be a mere wishful thought of the landlord. Sat Parkash Chaudhary v. Kewal Krishan Malhotra, 2011(1) L.A.R. 66 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Not occupying any other premises in the area – Non-pleading of – Objection to -- Effect of -- Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that mere non-pleading of a fact, which is enshrined in the statute, can always be rectified if a relevant objection is taken at the initial stage – Tenant failed to take any such objection in his reply to the petition -- Landlord broadly pleaded his personal necessity and he had not vacated any house in the municipal area where the demised premises is situated -- Flaw is not fatal to the case of the landlord -- Objection, therefore has to be negated. Sat Parkash Chaudhary v. Kewal Krishan Malhotra, 2011(1) L.A.R. 66 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Witness through co-landlord/husband – Even an attorney in the case of husband and wife can depose on behalf of the other – In case of non-appearance of landlady, her husband who had knowledge of the facts can depose in the Court and the non-appearance of his wife cannot be faulted with – Eviction order upheld. M/s Metro Tyres Limited v. Sushil Kumar and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 626 (P&H).