Allowed

Hari Nand Mehta v. Veena

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024CR/74/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the First Appellate Court's setting aside of an eviction decree. The High Court held that the landlord's claim for a married son's business fell under personal requirement provisions rather than specific professional clauses, rejecting the appellant's burden of proof regarding the landlord's vacated buildings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of First Appellate Court set aside; judgment of Rent Controller dated 29.11.2023 upheld.

Hari Nand Mehta Vs Veena — Execution and Attachment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Civil Revision No. 74 of 2024 Reserved on: 30.08.2024 Decided on:03.09.2024

¶3

____________________________________ Hari Nand Mehta Versus	_______ ………	_________ .. petitioner
Veena		respondent
____________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, J Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______ udge	_________
For the petitioner : M. Sumit Soo	d, Advoc	ate.
For the respondents : Mr. Amit Advocate	Kumar	Dhumal,
____________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)	_______	_________

¶4

The petitioner in the case at hand was the landlord, who had preferred an eviction petition before the Rent Controller under the HP Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter for purpose of brevity referred to as the Act). In the case at hand, eviction was being sought by the present petitioner/landlord on two grounds (a) change in user and (b) personal bona-fide requirement. The petition so filed by the petitioner/landlord before the Rent Controller was allowed on the ground of personnel bona-fide requirement vide judgment dated 29.11.2023.

¶5

The aforesaid judgment was assailed by the present respondent i.e. tenant before the First Appellate Court. The First

¶6

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

Appellate Court had set aside the judgment passed by the Rent Controller vide impugned judgment dated 27.04.2024. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlord.

¶9

In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances,

¶10

the sole contention raised by the present petitioner/landlord before this Court is with respect to his personal bona-fide requirement qua the tenanted premises.

¶11

Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and the record.

¶12

At the very outset, it would be relevant to reproduce

¶13

the pleadings of the petitioner/landlord qua personal bona-fide requirement as had been pleaded in the eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller and the specific reply thereto:-

¶14

Petition Response (ii)The married son of the (ii) In reply to this para of petition it is petitioner at present is doing his submitted that the petitioner owns a business with the petitioner but he huge building consisting of several intends to start the separate business shops/rooms rented out to several in the premises under petition so as tenants and few of them are lying to make his livelihood and the vacant, the married son can run his petitioner wants to settle him he business in any vacant shop of the being unemployed. The petitioner petitioner. Not only this petitioner is a wants to open bed and breakfast big land lord which fetches him business for his son for which income more than Rs. 10 Lac per business more rooms are required year besides income from rent of but the petitioner has not sufficient several shops. It is submitted that the accommodation which husband of respondent lives could full fill the requirement for separately from the respondent and opening and registration of the said the building of the husband of the business, hence the need for this respondent which finds mention in therefore, the same is this para is not in the market and is personal use and not in a suitable place to run any necessity besides other grounds in business. Moreover respondent has not cordial relation with her husband.

¶15

(ii)The married son of the petitioner at present is doing his business with the petitioner but he intends to start the separate business in the premises under petition so as to make his livelihood and the petitioner wants to settle him he being unemployed. The petitioner wants to open bed and breakfast business for his son for which business more rooms are required but the petitioner has not sufficient available accommodation which could full fill the requirement for opening and registration of the said business, hence the need for this petition, therefore, the same is required for personal use and necessity besides other grounds in the instant petition. The respondent has her own residential multi-storied house in the same ward No. 1 in the name of her husband just 50 meters

¶16

¶17

a head of the demised premises on road side, having sufficient accommodation, in which accommodation she can start her existing business.

¶18

Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the Examination-in-Chief of the present petitioner/landlord before the Rent Controller. The same is Ex.Aw1/A (evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Hari Nand Mehta). Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶19

“6. The married son of the petitioner/deponent at present is doing his business with the petitioner/deponent but to enlarge and extend the same intends to start the separate business in the premises under petition so as to make his livelihood and the petitioner/deponent wants to settle him he being unemployed.

¶20

7……………….

¶21

8. That the petitioner/deponent is in the need of personal requirement as the son of the petitioner/deponent is qualified and is unemployed and wants to start his own business in the said shop but for the want of the same/accommodation for the suitable business for him in accordance with his qualification and proposed business he is unable to start and carry out. On this ground also which is a personal requirement the respondent is liable to be evicted besides above referred other reasons”.

¶22

7. From the cross-examination of AW-1 i.e. Sh. Hari

¶23

Nand Mehta/petitioner/landlord, it is evident that there is no cross examination conducted by the present respondent qua the bonafide requirement of Sh. Hari Nand Mehta/petitioner/landlord. Other than the aforesaid, the respondent/tenant has not led any evidence to show that the tenanted accommodation is not required by the petitioner/landlord for his own use.

¶24

¶25

The present petition has been filed by the landlord/petitioner under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the act. The relevant provision is being reproduced here-in-below:-

¶26

“14. Eviction of Tenants :-

¶27

(3). A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-

¶28

(a) In the case of a [residential and non-residential building], if-

¶29

(i) he requires it for his own occupation ;

¶30

Provided that he is not occupying another [residential and non-residential building] owned by him in the urban area concerned:

¶31

Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area; or

¶32

The expression “his own occupation” as occurring in

¶33

sub clause (i) has been held to be a requirement of members of

¶34

the family of the landlord or of the one who is dependent on the landlord. In this respect, reference can be made to case reported

¶35

in Kailash Chand and another vs. Dharam Dass (2005)

¶36

Volume 5 SCC 375, relevant extract whereof reads as under:-

¶37

“24. The expression “his own occupation” as occurring in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-sectio n (3) is not to be assigned a narrow meaning. It has to be read liberally and given a practical meaning. "His own occupation" does not mean occupation by the landlord alone and as an individual. The expressions "for his own use" and "for occupation by himself as occurring in two other Rent Control Acts, have come up for the consideration of this Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal and Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan It was held that the requirement of members of the family of the landlord or of the one who is dependent on the landlord, is the landlord's own

¶38

¶39

requirement/Regard will be had to the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prévalent in a particular section of society or a particular region to which the landlord belongs, while interpreting such expressions. The requirement of the family members for residence is certainly the requirement by the landlord for “his own occupation” .

¶40

The reason why the expression “his own occupation” has been interpreted in the aforesaid manner is on account of the fact that it is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his children well in life and to contribute his best to see that his children are economically independent. Other than the aforesaid, the landlord is not going to let out the premises to his children though his children would run their business in the premises, the possession would continue with the landlord and in essence, the actual occupation by the children would be the occupation by the landlord himself.

¶41

Other than the aforesaid, the proviso of Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the act would come into play only if the landlord is occupying another residential building of his own in the same urban area and such building is considered by the Court as reasonable enough and suitable to satisfy the proven requirement of the landlord. Reference in this respect can be made to case reported as Kailash Chand’ case (supra).

¶42

In so far as the second proviso to Section 14(3)(1) is concerned, the tenant shall have to plead and proof that the landlord has vacated another residential building in the same

¶43

¶44

urban area within five years of the filing of the application. The onus will shift again on the landlord to either rebut the plea or to prove sufficient cause for such vacating. Reference in this respect can be made to case reported as Kailash Chand’ case (supra).

¶45

In the case at hand, in order to attract the applicability of the aforesaid two provisos, there is a complete lack of pleadings. Since there is a complete lack of pleadings in this regard, therefore, there arose no occasion for the respondent/tenant to lead evidence in this regard. Thereby no finding of fact has been returned in this regard by the Rent controller or the First Appellate Court.

¶46

The plea of bona fide requirement of the landlord has to be proven to the objective satisfaction of the Court of facts. The bona-fide requirement is not a mere whim or desire of the petitioner/landlord, the same must exist in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need. The landlord is the best judge of his own requirement. In this respect, neither the Court nor the tenant can dictate terms.

¶47

The First Appellate Court has completely misdirected itself while considering the case. The First Appellate Court has considered the eviction petition filed by the landlord/present petitioner to be one under Section 14(3)(d) of the act. The same is being reproduced here-in-below:-

¶48

“14(3)(d). in the case of [residential and non-residential building], if he requires it for use as an office, or

¶49

¶50

consulting room by [his son or his daughter] who intends to start practice as a lawyer, an architect, a dentist, an engineer, a veterinary surgeon or a medical practitioner, including a practitioner of Ayurvedic Unani or Homoeopathic System of Medicine or for the residence of his son who is married, if-

¶51

(i) his son as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office consulting room or residence, as the case may be; and

¶52

(ii) his son as aforesaid has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause, after the commencement of this Act, in the urban area concerned;

¶53

Section 14(3)(d) of the act specifies the

¶54

professions practiced by the landlord’s son(s) or daughter(s) for which the landlord can seek an eviction of a tenant in order to enable his children practicing such professions to set-up an office, consulting room or for the residence of his son who is married subject to the two conditions specified thereto. The aforesaid Section 14(3)(d), will have application only in case, the eviction is sought for the son’s requirement independently and separately from the landlord. In this respect, reference can be made to case reported in A.K. Jain vs. Prem Kapoor (2008) Volume 8 SCC 593, relevant extract whereof reads as under:-

¶55

“18. We are unable to accept this submission because we see no application of the quoted provision to the facts of this case. Section 13(3)(a)(ii) will have application only in case the eviction is sought for the son's requirement independently and separately from the landlord. In this case, the son and his wife and children are part of the landlord's family and all of them are living together. The accommodation of the son, his wife and f their children is

¶56

¶57

part of the landlord's personal necessity. The case of the appellant clearly falls under Section 13(3)(a)(i) that deals with the situation where the landlord requires the tenanted premises for his own occupation and it does not attract Section 13(3)(a)(ii) that deals with the requirements of the son of the landlord. In taking the view we are supported by the decision of this Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal³. In para 33 of the decision g it was held and observed as follows: (SCC p. 414)”.

¶58

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition

¶59

is allowed impugned judgment dated 27.04.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court is set-aside and the judgment dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Rent Controller is up-held. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶60

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶61

3^rd September, 2024 tarun

Hari Nand Mehta v. Veena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Nand Mehta v. Veena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghbir Singh Vs Bohra Ram

Anup Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Hem Raj Vs the Hptdcl

Padam Dev Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Gupta and Another Vs Mc Shimla

Lal Dei Vs State of Hp and Another