Bonafide Requirement Must Be Seen On Date Of Initiation Of Eviction Process, Not During Pendency Of Proceedings: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom held that the demise of a landlord’s son throughout the pendency of eviction proceedings doesn’t have an effect on the owner’s bona fide requirement for eviction, because the date for assessing such requirement is the date of submitting the eviction petition and never throughout the pendency of the proceedings.
The Courtroom noticed that eviction proceedings take time, and the owner shouldn’t undergo due to this. A landlord stays entitled to possession to place their property to higher use or settle their household, no matter subsequent occasions, the court docket stated.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “Loss of life of landlord’s son throughout pendency of judicial proceedings shall not have any affect on the bonafide requirement of landlord given that firstly bonafide requirement must be seen with regards to the date of initiation of eviction proceedings”
Background Information:
On Could 5, 2015, the owner, Jai Lal Bragta, filed a petition below Part 14 of the H.P. City Lease Management Act, 1987, searching for eviction of the tenant from his premises. He acknowledged the premises had been required for his private use to determine a enterprise to settle his son Vikram Bragta, and to reinforce his revenue by placing the property to higher use.
He asserted that he didn’t have some other non-residential premises in an city space, nor had he vacated any such industrial premises store inside 5 years previous to the submitting of the petition.
The lease controller allowed the eviction petition, and this order was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the tenant filed a civil revision earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
Contentions:
The tenant submitted that the son of the owner, for whose settlement the eviction petition was filed, had expired throughout the pendency of the current petition. Due to this fact, the eviction order was sought to be put aside as the bottom for the bona fide requirement not exists.
The tenant additionally contended that the owner or his son didn’t have any licence/registration in addition to adequate expertise to run the enterprise of pesticides, fertilisers, chemical compounds and allied agricultural merchandise.
Findings:
In Gaya Prasad v/s Pradeep Srivastava, 2001, the Supreme Courtroom held that “essential date for deciding as to the Bonafides of necessities of landlord is the date of his utility for eviction with statement that the place landlord had instituted eviction proceedings for bonafide necessities of his son who needed to start out a clinic, however throughout continuation of litigation for a protracted interval, son joined the provincial medical companies and posted at completely different locations, the stated subsequent occasion of becoming a member of service by son was not considered on the bottom that essential date was date of submitting of eviction petition”.
In D.Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundrarajan, 2019, the Supreme Courtroom held that “landlord shouldn’t be penalized for the slowness of the authorized system and the essential date for deciding the Bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of utility for eviction”.
Due to this fact, the Excessive Courtroom held that the demise of the owner’s son throughout the pendency of the case didn’t have an effect on the bona fide requirement of the owner. The Courtroom famous that the bona fide requirement must be seen with regards to the date of initiation of eviction proceedings. Additionally, it was held that it was not solely the son of the owner who needed to be settled, however even after his demise, his daughter-in-law, alongside along with her baby, had been in want of premises for beginning enterprise.
Lastly, even whether it is thought of that the daughter-in-law was not eager about working the enterprise, the court docket famous that the bona fide requirement as laid down by the owner was not primarily based just for settling his son but in addition for the augmentation of revenue by placing the property to higher use for enterprise functions.
The Courtroom additionally rejected the tenant’s rivalry that the owner didn’t have a legitimate license and sufficient expertise to run the enterprise. It held that it’s the obligation of the involved Businesses to confirm the necessities for working the enterprise proposed by the owner. Additional, such a licence or different formalities for working the enterprise will be accomplished by the owner after the eviction of the tenant from the premises.
It held that eviction proceedings take time, like on this case, the petition was filed in 2015, and it’s the 12 months 2025, and the owner nonetheless has not been in a position to get hold of possession of the premises.
Thus, the Courtroom upheld the orders of the Lease Controller and the Appellate Authority.
Case Identify: Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra
Case No.: Civil Revision No. 74 of 2022
Date of Resolution: 01.07.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vedhant Ranta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate
