Punjab & Haryana HC: Eviction of Tenant Upheld for Landlord’s Bona Fide Need to Build Shopping Complex

Case Name: Manjit Singh v. Manjit Singh
Date of Judgment: January 10, 2020
Citation: CR-7797-2019 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal

Held: The High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision petition and upheld the concurrent orders of eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It held that the landlord’s requirement was bona fide, as he intended to return from Germany and construct a shopping complex on his property including the demised shop. The Court clarified that precedents like Dhan Devi v. Bakshi Ram (1968 PLR 913), which restricted eviction from rented land when the landlord only wanted to construct a building, were not applicable because in the present case the subject was a shop, i.e., a constructed building, and the landlord wanted to integrate it with adjoining premises for commercial use. The argument that partial construction on other parts of the property negated bona fide need was rejected.

Summary: The tenant argued that eviction could not be ordered to facilitate a shopping complex construction and relied on earlier Division Bench authority. He further contended that the landlord had already built shops on adjoining property where his brother was running business, proving lack of genuine necessity. The Court examined the case law and distinguished it, noting that unlike in Dhan Devi, the present case did not involve vacant rented land but a constructed shop, and the landlord wished to merge it with his larger commercial project. The landlord’s testimony, including his return from Germany to depose in court, showed clear bona fide intent to settle in India and use the property. The Court emphasized that partial construction by the landlord did not defeat his genuine requirement, particularly as the shop abutted the main road and could be suitably merged with the new complex. Eviction proceedings had already been pending for about eight years, and the landlord could not be expected to indefinitely wait for the tenant to vacate.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision, affirming the eviction order in favor of the landlord. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.