#evictionpetition

[seemabhatnagar]

Landlord ultimately succeeded

Krishan Lal & others v. Ashok Jain Decided by the Single Judge, Hon’ble Mr. Justice H S Madaan, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Order pronounced on 01.06.2023 dismissing the Revision of the Tenant.

#property#legal#businesss#rentcontrollerambala#evictionpetition#lanlord#tenant#justify#necessity#Appeal#HighCourtofPunjabandHaryanaatChandigarh#cogentandconvincingevidence To get the possession over his property the landlord has to fight a legal battle for years with his Tenant, ultimately, he succeeded and got possession of the shop. But in the process the Landlord has to justify his necessity before the Rent Controller Ambala. Rent Controller Ambala was not satisfied with the justification of the Landlord and dismissed the Eviction Petition. Aggrieved with the dismissal order, the petitioner-landlord filed Appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal of the Landlord with direction to tenant to vacate the premise within 02 months failing which Landlord was given liberty to get the order executed by the Competent Court. Now tenant felt aggrieved with the order of eviction and filed Revision Petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court after hearing the submission of the parties dismissed the Revision as devoid of merit and upheld the order of the Appellate Authority observing that Rent Controller Ambala clearly fell in error in drawing the inference that the petitioner had failed to lead any cogent, clinching and reliable evidence to prove that he required the shop in dispute for his bona fide need, whereas the landlord had brought sufficient cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he had a bona fide need of the shop and his such need was not just a wish. The #Landlord has given his #shop on rent to the father of the Petitioner who was running an Halwai shop at Nicholson Road Ambala Cantt. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his son stepped into the shoes and in fact changed their business as well. Rent from 2013 remained unpaid to the Landlord. Moreso, the son of the landlord wanted the shop for extension of his business of scientific medical equipment as he was having shop adjacent to the shop rented out to the tenant and his business was expanding. Hon’ble High Court observed that the law is well settled that a landlord is best judge of his requirement. The portion in possession of son of the landlord, where he is said to be doing business of scientific equipment is on the rear side of the shop in question and demised shop is in possession of revision petitioners as well as shop already sold by the landlord to some other person. If son of the landlord wants to expand his business in the demised shop having direct access to the road, there is nothing wrong in his such plans. He cannot be advised to find some other place for expansion of his business and allow the revision petitioners to keep possession of the shop in dispute.

Seema Bhatnagar