Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction for Landlord’s Bonafide Need, Rules Tenant Cannot Dictate Terms of Use

Case Name: Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Another
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2025
Citation: CR-5544-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeépti Sharma

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging eviction on the ground of landlord’s bonafide requirement, reaffirming that a tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should use his property. Justice Sudeépti Sharma held that the landlord, being the best judge of her own needs, is entitled to seek possession for establishing a business, even if she owns or has sold other premises earlier. The Court emphasized that bonafide requirement means an honest and genuine need, not tainted by any ulterior motive, and that Rent Controllers must proceed on the presumption that such requirement is genuine unless disproved.

Summary: The case originated from an eviction petition filed by Asha Rani, a widow, before the Rent Controller, Batala, under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking possession of a shop occupied by Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. since 1966. The eviction was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent, subletting, and bonafide personal requirement to start a business of ladies’ garments and handbags.

The Rent Controller dismissed the petition in 2021, but the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, reversed the decision in May 2025, allowing eviction and granting three months’ time to vacate. The tenant then filed the present revision petition, arguing that the landlord already owned and had sold other shops and could use those instead, implying lack of bonafide intent.

Justice Sharma rejected the contention, observing that the landlord’s decision regarding which property to retain or sell cannot be questioned by a tenant. Referring to Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 and Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397, the Court reiterated that “own use” under the Act includes use by family members or dependents and must be construed liberally to reflect genuine need. The Court also relied on Raghunath G. Panhale v. Chagan Lal Sudarji & Co. (1999) 2 RCR (Rent) 485 to reaffirm that bonafide need lies between mere desire and dire necessity.

Decision: The High Court upheld the order of the Appellate Authority, confirming eviction of the tenant from the disputed shop. It held that Asha Rani’s requirement was genuine and that her ownership of other shops did not negate bonafide need. The revision petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.