Bonafide need

Must not be immediate – Punjab Rent Act -- It is not the requirement of the law that in order to succeed u/s 13 (3) of the Act, the landlord's need must be an immediate and an existing one on the very date of application of ejectment and he is entitled to anticipate his requirement in a reasonably foreseeable future. J.G. Kohli’s case, AIR 1976 Punjab and Haryana 107 relied. Sant Kumar and another v. R.S. Virk and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 500 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Every landlord has every right to increase the income neither tenant not Rent Controller can dictate that landlady should feel satisfied on the pension being received by the husband of the landlady. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Eviction petition – Petition under wrong provision – Effect of -- Contention that to evict a tenant from the rented land the provisions applicable would be Section 13(iii)(b) of the Act, and not Section 13(3-A) under which rent petition was filed -- Once it is not in dispute, that the procedure for eviction u/s 13(3-A) of the Act, is same, it would hardly make a difference, if in the heading of the petition a provision is mentioned instead of another -- Contention could have only been accepted, in case the procedure under Section 13(3-A) of the Act, would have been different i.e. summary procedure, which would have given undue advantage to the landlord to seek eviction -- Once it is only the right given wherein the party has to prove his case of personal necessity in terms of section 13 of the Act it would not make any difference if the petition filed u/s 13(3-A) of the Act is to be taken u/s 13(iii)(b). Siri Ram & another v. Gopal Krishan Sharma, 2011(2) L.A.R. 54 (P&H).

Rent Act -- If landlord does not want to share a residence with his other brothers because of some estrange relations between the wives of the brothers and because of shortage of the accommodation in the joint residential house then landlord has every right to shift to his independent house to reside peacefully -- Tenant cannot dictate the landlord that landlord should keep on residing in the joint house with the family of his brothers – Need set up by the landlord is wholly proved. United Commercial Bank and another v. Lalit Bahri and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 559 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Need of the landlady is genuine and bona fide to establish the coaching classes for the increase of monthly income of the husband after his retirement -- It is not open to the tenant to say that there is open place where new construction can be raised to start coaching class -- Suitability of the accommodation as per the requirement of the landlady is a personal decision of the landlady which cannot be said to be wrong by the tenant or Rent Controller. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Pleadings – Amendment in -- By way of amendment, landlord only wants to bring on record the additional facts regarding the availability of additional accommodation to him which has come into existence after filing of the petition – Landlord is to show that he requires the demised premises for his own use and he is not occupying any such shop in the urban area concerned for the purpose of business or any other such demised premises and he has not vacated such premises without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the urban area concerned -- Amendment sought by the petitioner, does not, in any manner allow the petitioner to fill in the aforesaid lacuna -- Rather, it may be noticed that the aforesaid fact of availability of additional accommodation to the petitioner shall be helpful to the Rent Controller to reach to the conclusion with regard to the need of the personal bona fide need of the landlord in an effective manner – Prayer for amendment by the landlord is allowed. Sunil Badhan v. Tarsem Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 660 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Presumption -- Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide, rather, Rent Controller must proceed on the presumption that requirement is bona fide. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Revisional Jurisdiction -- Both the Courts below recorded concurrent finding of fact in favour of the landlord that need is bona fide and genuine, the same should not be disturbed while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. United Commercial Bank and another v. Lalit Bahri and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 559 (P&H). 

Rent Act -- Sale of property – Effect of -- Merely because certain properties were sold by the landlady, when husband of the landlady was in service, will not make landlady disentitled to seek eviction of the tenant to start coaching classes after the retirement of the husband of the landlady. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).