Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant for Landlady’s Son’s Business; Holds Desire to Start Independent Venture Is Bona Fide
Case Name: Bachittar Singh alias Bachitar Singh Sadana and Another v. Roshani Devi
Date of Decision: 21 January 2026
Citation: CR-6146-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and upheld concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, holding that a landlady’s requirement of a tenanted shop to enable her son to start an independent business constitutes a bona fide personal necessity. The Court held that mere involvement of a family member in an existing joint business does not negate the genuineness of his aspiration to commence a separate venture.
Summary: The respondent-landlady initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners-tenants in respect of a shop situated at Shahabad Markanda, alleging arrears of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises for establishing a cosmetics, artificial jewellery and gift business for her son, Sourabh Saini. Although the ground of arrears was not pressed, eviction was sought on the basis of personal necessity.
The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on 02.08.2024, which order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 08.08.2025. Aggrieved, the tenants approached the High Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction, contending that the landlady had suppressed material facts regarding availability of alternative commercial properties and that her son was already assisting in an existing family business.
The High Court examined the documentary evidence and found that the properties relied upon by the tenants to allege suppression were not owned by the landlady but by another family member. The Court noted that the only shop owned by the landlady was already being used by her other son for his independent business. The Appellate Authority had correctly appreciated this evidence and rejected the plea of concealment.
The Court further held that law does not compel a dependent family member to continue in a joint enterprise, and the desire to establish an independent livelihood cannot be branded as fanciful, artificial or mala fide. Relying on settled principles governing eviction on the ground of personal necessity under Section 13(3)(a) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the Court found that the requirement pleaded by the landlady satisfied the statutory test of bona fide need.
Finding no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings, the High Court declined to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Decision: The revision petition was dismissed. The orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority directing eviction of the tenants were upheld. The petitioners were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent-landlady within one month.