Landlord Can Seek Eviction for Son’s Bona Fide Professional Requirement Even If Son Already Runs Clinic Elsewhere; Punjab and Haryana High Court Holds Existing Accommodation, Absence of Eviction Threat or Sanctioned Site Plan No Bar to Eviction Under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
Case Name: Dr. Kamal Kant and Another v. Santosh Rani and Others
Date of Judgment: 6 October 2026
Citation: CR-1547-2006
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the expression “for his own use” under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, includes the bona fide requirement of premises for the professional use of the landlord’s son, even where the son is already carrying on his profession from another rented premises. Relying upon Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397, the Court held that the absence of an immediate threat of eviction from existing accommodation, availability of another property or lack of a sanctioned site plan cannot independently defeat an otherwise genuine requirement. The landlord is ordinarily the best judge of the suitability of premises, and the tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should arrange his affairs. The Court further clarified that earlier unsuccessful eviction proceedings and the subsequent death of the original landlord do not automatically extinguish a bona fide requirement pursued through his legal representatives. Concurrent findings based on an erroneous legal test remain amenable to interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Summary: The dispute concerned eviction of a tenant from Shop No. 56, Kabari Bazar, Ferozepur Cantonment, sought by the original landlord, Surinder Nath, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Eviction was claimed on grounds of short tender of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises for establishing an indoor hospital-cum-clinic for his son, Dr. Kamal Kant, an orthopaedic surgeon already operating Tarlok Hospital from rented premises.
The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority dismissed the eviction claim, principally reasoning that Dr. Kamal Kant was already practising elsewhere, faced no immediate threat of eviction, and had not obtained approval for the proposed alterations. They also considered the availability of alternative accommodation and the landlord’s previous eviction proceedings.
The High Court distinguished between the two grounds of eviction. Regarding arrears, it upheld the protection afforded to the tenant under Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002) 5 SCC 440, since the initial shortfall of ₹779 had subsequently been deposited pursuant to the Rent Controller’s directions.
On bona fide requirement, however, the Court found that the authorities below had applied an unduly restrictive legal test. Following Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397, it held that the son’s existing medical practice did not negate the genuine need for more suitable premises adjoining the family residence. Neither the absence of an imminent eviction threat nor the lack of a sanctioned site plan was decisive. The alternative premises had also not been established to be equally suitable.
The Court further observed that previous eviction litigation on different grounds did not bar a subsequent claim based on bona fide requirement, and that the death of the original landlord did not extinguish the claim being pursued by his legal representatives. Since the concurrent findings were founded upon an erroneous interpretation of the statutory requirement, interference under Section 15(5) was justified.
Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders dated 25.03.2003 and 26.10.2005 passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, respectively, and allowed eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement.