Punjab & Haryana HC: Tenant Evicted for Landlord’s Bona Fide Need to Open Restaurant and for Ceasing to Occupy Premises

Case Name: Mehra Shawls & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Rehlan & Ors.
Date of Judgment: January 13, 2020
Citation: CR No. 8483 of 2018 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal

Held: The High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision petition and upheld concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. It held that the landlords had established bona fide requirement of the premises for opening a fast-food restaurant with a kitty hall and pool table room by amalgamating adjoining shops. It also upheld the finding that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months before filing of the eviction petition, as evidenced by electricity consumption records, Local Commissioner’s report, and other circumstances. Mere payment of electricity bills or occasional transactions could not disprove prolonged non-occupation.

Summary: The petitioners, tenants of a large shop in Amritsar, challenged eviction orders passed on grounds of bona fide requirement and non-occupation. The landlords pleaded that they intended to start a restaurant business by merging the demised premises with two adjoining properties. The tenants argued that one adjoining shop had been sold during the eviction proceedings and another had been re-let, proving lack of genuine requirement. They also contended that the premises was not vacant, relying on electricity bills, telephone records, and account statements. The landlords countered that the shop in tenant’s possession was ten times bigger than the adjoining ones, that distress sale of one portion was compelled by non-eviction, and that the premises in question was found locked continuously by the electricity department and the Local Commissioner. The High Court held that bona fide need existed despite the sale of one smaller portion, as the main premises was large enough to start the proposed business. It further found that prolonged locking, irregular payment of bills, and negligible sales entries proved non-occupation by the tenants. The failure of the tenant-proprietor to appear as a witness further weakened their case.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the eviction of the tenants on both counts of bona fide requirement and ceasing to occupy the premises.