Bonafide need

Punjab Rent Act -- In view of Section 13(4) of the Act, need alleged by the landlords must be presumed to be correct and genuine, unless of course, proved otherwise. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Pleadings – Subsequent events -- Court at any stage of proceedings can take into consideration subsequent events and mould the relief -- On the issue of non-pleadings of ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, if the landlord had failed to plead the ingredients but led evidence to that effect then the nonpleadings of ingredients is not fatal – Landlords have now got residential house vacated and are held to be having a bona fide necessity of the demised premises (SCF), which has been duly established on the basis of evidence led – Eviction order upheld. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Death of landlord -- Whether the Legal Representatives of landlord are required to seek amendment of the eviction petition in order to set up their own case for the purpose of eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal necessity – Landlord had already taken a plea in the eviction petition and categorically stated on oath in his affidavit that that he wanted to settle his son -- All the requirements of law were complied with by landlord even before his death and rest has been complied by his widow who had stated in her examination that they do not possess any other commercial building in Chandigarh nor had vacated – Held, matter not requires a remand for the legal heirs of landlord to set up their own case. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Eviction of tenant – Non-occupation by landlord -- Remedy of -- Safeguard is provided by the legislature, if landlord or his family for whose benefit eviction was obtained, fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession or where he puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order and direction that he shall be restored to possession of such building. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

Rent Act -- It is the prerogative of the landlord to expand his business -- If landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand his business, his need must be presumed as bonafide. -- Rent Controller shall not proceed to presume that alleged need is not bonafide -- This is not open to the Rent Controller to say that landlords are already having business in different countries and cities and are well settled in their lives, hence do not require demised premises for setting up Departmental Store of world repute in City -- Landlord is the best judge of his need and requirement -- If landlords want to open big Departmental Store in all the six floors of the building, tenant or Rent Controller have no business to dictate that landlords should start business in 1300 square feet ground floor area -- Every landlord has every right to expand business or to open new ventures. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Merely because landlords have not filed eviction petition against all the tenants in one go for the same need and have filed petitions against the Corporation at the subsequent stage, does not mean that the landlords have no requirement for personal use and occupation of the entire building as set up by the landlords -- Landlord is the master of his case and need and if he decides to file petition against the tenants at different stages for the same need, then landlord’s need cannot be said to be malafide. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

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).

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).