Dismissed¶45

Mohinder Paul Bhardwaj v. Sita Ram Dhingra and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2026CR/2112/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

bonafide need; element of need versus mere desire; landlord best judge of his requirements; Rent Controller; Appellate Authority; concurrent finding; revision petition dismissed; two months' time to vacate; arrears of rent/mesne profits within 15 days; Pratap Rai Tanwani v. Uttam Chand, 2004(2) RCR-436 (SC); M/s Satpal Vijay Kumar v. Sushil Kumar, 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 160; Sushant Sethi; Pooja Dhingra.

What did the court decide?

Two months' time to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the demised premises, subject to payment of the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits within 15 days. ¶45

Mohinder Paul Bhardwaj Vs Sita Ram Dhingra and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Two months' time to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the demised premises, subject to payment of the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits within 15 days.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the landlords' requirement of the demised premises was bonafide and whether the impugned judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority suffered from any manifest error or illegality warranting interference in revision.

¶44

Court's answer

Bonafide personal necessity requires an element of genuine need as opposed to a mere desire or wish; the judge must satisfy himself that the landlord's need, as substantiated, is natural, real, sincere and honest.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently found the demised premises bona fide required by petitioner No.1 for starting his own business and for settling his maternal grandson Sushant Sethi; the tenant could show nothing to disprove the bonafides.

¶40

Key takeaways

Applying the principle that a landlord's stated need to establish or extend his business is presumed correct and genuine, the bonafide need pleaded by the petitioners cannot be doubted, the respondent having led no evidence of malafide or of mere desire.ratio¶43
The impugned judgments do not suffer from any manifest error or illegality and the law has been rightly applied; no interference is called for.ratio¶44
The revision petition is dismissed, but the petitioner/tenant is granted two months from the date of the order to vacate the demised premises, subject to payment of the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits within 15 days.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition by the tenant against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the demised premises were bona fide required by petitioner No.1 (landlord) for starting his own business and for settling his maternal grandson Sushant Sethi, son of his divorced daughter Pooja Dhingra — dismissed. The tenant led no evidence that the need was malafide or a mere desire; a landlord's stated need to establish or extend his business is presumed correct and genuine. No manifest error or illegality found in the impugned judgments. Tenant granted two months to vacate, subject to payment of the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits within 15 days.

�� 

��

�� 

�� !"��#�$#��

%��&��'�� ��

��

(��%�� ��

��%"��)�&��%�#��(��(�*��(��

¶9

��

¶10

��

¶11

��(�*��(��+��#�,�-�./

¶12

�� !��"��!!��!!��#�� $�� ,0�-��!��-�-��--�1�� 0��-� 2�!1�!�/ ��%��%��&��&��&�� '��(��)��%�+�%��,-, ,0�-��!��- �-��--�1 �� 0��/+ ��%# �� $!��!�� ,0�-��!��-�-��--�1�� 0��2��!�- / �� )��$.$./�,��!�� ��  �� &��/(�/.�./.(�� /.�/.�./.0��!#��

¶13

.� ��!��!��$�� &��!��!��!��

¶14

(� "��$!��!��#��1

¶15

ASGAR ALI 2026.03.07 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

�� 

¶17

��&1!��!��&�� %��-/�#�� !#��-//$1 ��&��2'��&�3�� 4�� %��!�� &��!��'��'�� ��3�� .��!��%�� )�� &�� 4��%#��!��!! ��! ��'��'��&��! ��

¶18

-� ��!#��&��!��!��!�� %��!��1��&1 !��!��. �� &�� &��!��!����&�� 5��#��&��&��%#��"��!!�� .-�/6�.//. ��! ��!��%# ��!�� &��%#��!!��#��*�� &��,��.�.//(� ��!!��#��!�� !�� !�� 7��!#��

6� 8��&��!�� !!��

��&��1

��

��

ASGAR ALI 2026.03.07 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

�� $

��

�� !��

"� �� #��$ %� �� &�� $

¶28

'� $��

¶29

0� 9��!�� !��"��!!��&��!�� 4��&�� %��!!��!��&��!� ��'��'�� !��!��!��!��!��7��%�� &��%#�:��!��)7��1-�� #��%��%�� %��!��%#�%��&�� !�� !��!��&� ��!#�� &��&��&�� &��/(�/.�./.(�

¶30

;� 8��!�� !�� !��!!��#��!��&��&��*�� &�� /.�/.�./.0��!��$�%��!!�� #��1

¶31

ASGAR ALI 2026.03.07 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

��

¶33

¶34

�(� �)��$�� +�� ,��+�� -�� .��&�#��$��/�� &�� $��&�� )��)��-�� )��)�� &��(0��1��2��&�� 3��4�� )��)�� 5��5��6��7��.�� 8)��9�� (0��1�&��4�� -��+�� 3�� #��,��7��8:9 �; �� $�,��&��<��$��8:9��$�#��7�� <�.��,��7�� 3��#��2��=��,�� #�� !�� 3��#�� 2��=��2��&�� &��&�� &��1

¶35

<� It is well settled that landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and a tenant cannot dictate him the way how to live and it is

¶36

<�

¶37

ASGAR ALI 2026.03.07 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

�� 4

¶39

for the landlord to see as to what accommodation is needed by him and his family members. However, there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. Requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant. The only way to determine the existence of ground of bonafide personal necessity is that the judge should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then pose a question to himself whether in the given facts, substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and if the answer is in the positive, the need is bonafide. Reference in this regard can be made to 2004(2) RCR-436 (SC) Pratap Rai Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand.

¶40

In the present case, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have arrived at a concurrent finding that the demised premises is required by petitioner No.1 for starting his own business as well as for settling his maternal grandson Sushant Sethi, who is the son of his divorced daughter Pooja Dhingra. Nothing could be shown by the respondent/tenant that the need of the landlord was not bonafide or that he owns some other shop in the Urban Area concerned or that he has got the same vacated without sufficient cause. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and a tenant cannot be allowed to dictate to him the way how to live. In 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 160 , M/s Satpal Vijay Kumar Vs. Sushil Kumar , it has been held that when eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide need, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the assumption that the requirement is not bonafide. If the landlord states that he needs the demised shop for establishment of

¶41

ASGAR ALI 2026.03.07 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

�� 

¶43

his business or to extend the business, his need should always be presumed as correct and genuine. As such, the bonafide need as pleaded by the petitioners cannot be doubted, particularly when the respondent has failed to lead any evidence to show that the claim of the landlords is malafide or that there is no element of need and it is a mere desire or wish.

¶44

Learned Rent Controller, thus, appreciated the pleadings and evidence on the file in the correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that the landlords require the demised premises for their own bonafide need and the finding of the Rent Controller has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. No other reasonable finding could have been arrived at from the evidence on file and the impugned judgments, thus, do not suffer from any manifest error or illegality and the law has also been rightly applied. No interference in the impugned judgments passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is called for and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶45

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted two months’ time to vacate the demised premises from today, subject to payment of the entire arrears of rent/mesne profits within 15 days.

¶46

,��(�*��(��/ ��

¶47

/0�/(�./.0 �� =�� $�� >��$�� =��%!�� >��$��

¶48

ASGAR ALI 2026.03.07 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohinder Paul Bhardwaj v. Sita Ram Dhingra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Paul Bhardwaj v. Sita Ram Dhingra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kcb Infra Vs Varundeep Kaur and Another

Jaggi Alias Jagdish Alias Jaggu and Others Vs Zile Singh and Another

Rajeev Goel Vs Transasia Private Capital Limited and Another

Narinder Singh and Another Vs Rajinder Kumar and Others

Boota Singh Vs Rakesh Kumar and Others

(O&M) Ramesh and Ors. Vs Muzafar Khan and Anr.