Landlord’s Ownership of Other Properties and Death of Family Members During Litigation Do Not Defeat Proven Personal Necessity; Eviction of Tenant Upheld: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Gajinder Singh (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives v. Bhupinder Singh
Date of Judgment: 21 September 2026
Citation: C.R. No. 4387 of 2019
Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: A landlord’s ownership of other properties does not, by itself, defeat a claim of bona fide personal necessity under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. Ownership must be distinguished from occupation, and the suitability of the other properties must be assessed against the need actually pleaded. The subsequent death of family members mentioned in the eviction petition did not extinguish this landlord’s independently established need to live away from his expanding hospital. The High Court, exercising revision under Section 15(6), found no perversity or legal error warranting interference with the eviction order. It also upheld the appellate finding of nuisance and refused the tenants’ applications for additional evidence.
Summary: Bhupinder Singh purchased the house containing the tenanted premises in Yamuna Nagar in 2007 and sought eviction in 2008. He pleaded that his residential accommodation within his hospital had become insufficient as the hospital expanded and that he wished to live separately, near the Gurudwara and market. The Rent Controller allowed eviction on the ground of personal necessity but rejected the allegation of nuisance. The Appellate Authority affirmed personal necessity, reversed the finding on nuisance, and dismissed three applications by the tenants to lead additional evidence.
In revision, the legal representatives of the original tenant relied on the landlord’s other property holdings, the death of his wife and parents-in-law during the proceedings, and an alleged failure to disclose residential accommodation. They also challenged the appellate finding of nuisance and sought to introduce a municipal tax register as further evidence.
The High Court held that the landlord had explained why his other properties did not meet his residential need. A property requisitioned for a judicial officer could not be treated as voluntarily vacated by him, while ownership of other properties was not equivalent to occupation of a suitable residence. The deaths relied on by the tenants did not remove the landlord’s separate need to live away from the hospital. As to nuisance, the Appellate Authority was entitled to assess the evidence afresh; its conclusion, based on conduct including obstruction of a common entrance and an alleged incident involving threats, was a plausible one that did not call for interference in revision.
The Court refused to admit the municipal tax register produced in 2024 because the tenants had not shown why it could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence. Its classification of parts of the hospital complex as residential and commercial also did not establish a separate residential house inconsistent with the landlord’s pleaded case. The Court disapproved the Appellate Authority’s remarks about the professional occupations of the tenant’s legal heirs, but held that those remarks had not affected its reasoned findings.
Decision: The revision petition and the application to produce the municipal tax register were dismissed. The eviction order was upheld. The tenants were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession and to continue paying the admitted rent and other charges until then.