A tenant cannot tell a landlord how to meet his needs without recovering possession of the rented property, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
The observation came while the court upheld the eviction of a Ludhiana shop tenant from premises sought by the landlord for his married son to start an independent business.
The court said a tenant could not defeat a bona fide requirement by proposing alternative ways for the landlord to accommodate his needs. “The Supreme Court has categorically held that Rent Controller should proceed with presumption that requirement is bonafide and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises,” Justice Sudeepti Sharma ruled.
The ruling is significant as it reinforces the principle that a tenant cannot defeat an eviction claim by suggesting alternative arrangements or insisting that the landlord manage without recovering the property, once the owner’s need is found to be genuine.
The dispute concerned a shop situated in a building on Brown Road in Ludhiana. The landlord had sought eviction on the ground that his son, after marriage, wanted to establish an independent spare-parts business from the premises. The landlord was represented by advocates Viren Sibal and Shayon Sen.
Justice Sharma, during the course of hearing, was told that the son neither owned nor occupied any other shop, making the requirement genuine. The tenant, on the other hand, challenged the eviction contending that the respondent had failed to establish his status as owner-landlord of the property and therefore could not maintain an eviction petition.
Rejecting the argument, the High Court noted that evidence on record showed that the property had earlier belonged to a family trust but was presently owned exclusively by the respondent. Documents produced before the court, coupled with the respondent’s cross-examination, sufficiently established his ownership rights.
“The material available on record sufficiently establishes that the respondent is the owner-landlord of the property and, consequently, entitled to receive rent and maintain a petition for ejectment of the tenant,” the court held.
The High Court further observed that the tenant’s challenge would fail even if the question of ownership was left aside. Pointing to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the court noted that the definition of “landlord” expressly includes a trustee. As such, a trustee receiving rent is also competent to initiate eviction proceedings against a tenant.
“The only requirement as per Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is that the person asking for eviction/applying for eviction should be landlord,” Justice Sharma observed, adding that the respondent was covered by the statutory definition.
The court also referred to Supreme Court rulings explaining that a bona fide requirement means an honest need free from any oblique motive. It further noted that the expression “for his own use” is not confined to the personal use of the landlord and extends to dependent family members as well.
“The Supreme Court has defined ‘for his own use’ by holding that it would include the use of family members or a person, who is dependent on landlord or of whom landlord is dependent,” the judgment noted.
Finding no infirmity or illegality in the appellate order dated May 19, 2025, the High Court upheld the eviction order and dismissed the tenant’s revision petition. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
