Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction on Ground of Bona Fide Personal Necessity; Holds Tenant Cannot Dictate Which Premises Landlord Should Use

Case Name: Kulwant Singh Bhatia (since deceased) through LRs v. Sourabh Khanna and Others
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: CR-413-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Archana Puri

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a tenant’s revision petition and upheld concurrent eviction orders passed on the ground of bona fide personal necessity under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Court held that a co-owner landlord is fully competent to seek eviction for personal requirement and that the tenant cannot dictate the choice, suitability, or extent of premises required by the landlord. Subsequent availability of another shop during pendency of proceedings was held to be irrelevant where the need existed on the date of filing of the eviction petition.

Summary: The revision petition was filed by the tenant challenging concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the ground of personal necessity. The landlord, a co-owner of the demised SCO, had pleaded that despite being qualified, he had no independent source of income or commercial premises to establish his own business and was only assisting his elder brother from a small cabin.

The tenant argued that the landlord’s need was not genuine, contending that another adjoining shop of similar size had become available during the proceedings and was subsequently re-let to a third party, indicating a motive to enhance rent rather than meet any bona fide requirement. The tenant further assailed the findings by alleging misappreciation of evidence.

The High Court rejected these submissions and reiterated settled principles governing eviction on personal necessity. It held that one co-owner can maintain an eviction petition on behalf of all co-owners and that consent of other co-owners is presumed unless specifically disputed. The Court found no evidence of opposition from other co-owners and held the landlord’s status as co-owner to be duly established.

On the issue of alternative accommodation, the Court held that the bona fide requirement of the landlord must be assessed as on the date of filing of the eviction petition and that subsequent events do not dilute an otherwise genuine need. The Court further emphasised that the tenant cannot compel the landlord to occupy a different premises merely because it became available later, reiterating that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of premises for his business.

The Court also took note of the tenant’s failure to comply with orders directing payment of mesne profits, including non-compliance with a conditional order passed by the Supreme Court. This conduct was held to tilt equities against the tenant and disentitle him from discretionary relief.

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority were upheld.