High Court’s decision in favor of landlords, now the tenant can not tell the landlord how to use the property
“It is at the discretion of the landlord to vacate the leased space and use it as per its requirement”.
NEW DELHI 29/11/2023 (TECHNO REPORTER): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld the order vacating the rented space, saying the landlord cannot be deprived of beneficial use of his property and has the right to decide how to use his property. The HC said it is an established law that the tenant cannot tell the landlord how to use the property.
It is at the discretion of the landlord to vacate the leased space and use it as per its requirement. The high court passed the order while dismissing a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging the trial court’s order vacating a shop on Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg here.
Landlords cannot be deprived of beneficial enjoyment of their property and are vested with the right to decide how to utilise their possessions, the Delhi High Court said on Wednesday while upholding an order for vacation of tenanted premises. The high court said it is trite law that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how the property has to be utilised.
“Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the court is not to sit on the armchair of landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilised. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their need,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said. The high court passed the judgement while dismissing a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging a trial court’s order of eviction of a shop at Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg here.
The landlord said he and his son are joint owners of the property, where several shops have been given on rent, and he has been running a hotel on the first floor and those above that. He said his son, who has completed his education abroad, wishes to run an independent business, and has decided to start a plush restaurant for which they require the tenanted portions back.
The tenant, in his plea, said the landlords in their eviction petition did not disclose the exact area under their possession and the space occupied by 14 tenants. He claimed the eviction petition was nothing but an afterthought as property prices and rent in the area have risen astronomically. He said the petition was filed in order to seek higher rent from him or to sell the tenanted premises at a premium.
The high court, in its verdict, said there was no material on record to show that the need of the landlords was either malafide or fanciful. It dismissed the revision petition, saying it had no merit. “The desire of the landlords of running a restaurant cannot be faulted with as they are the best judge of their requirement and it is trite law that tenant cannot dictate to landlords as to how the property has to be utilised,” it said.
The high court noted that the material placed on record showed that the tenanted premises was genuinely required for running a restaurant.
MORE CASE STUDIES
It is common knowledge that whenever a landlord moves in the Court for ejection of a tenant, on the ground of ‘ Personal Need’, the tenant invariably takes a plea that the landlord already has sufficient space and therefore the plea of the landlord is unsustainable. Recently, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 231-232 OF 2021 Balwant Singh @ Bsnt Singh & Anr. vs. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr. on 27 January, 2021 has finally set to rest the said controversy.
The brief facts of the case that the appellants/landlords initiated eviction proceedings against the tenants in respect of shops on the ground floor of the building in Khanna, Punjab. The appellants are NRI and sought immediate recovery of possession of the rented premises by invoking the provisions of Section 13B read with Section 18A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Act claiming that they desired to start the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of furniture and the property already in possession of the landlord, is insufficient for the proposed business.
The two tenants pleaded before the Rent Controller that the landlords have already secured possession of the two shops through litigations and the furniture business can be conveniently conducted in the already available space.
The Rent Controller considered the rival submissions and observed that the three necessary ingredients for initiating proceedings under Section 13B of the Act were satisfied by the landlords. The Rent Controller accordingly rejected the objections of the tenants that a portion of the premises would be sufficient for the proposed business & ordered for eviction of the tenants.
Aggrieved by the said order, the tenants filed Revisions before the High Court to challenge the orders of the Rent Controller. The High Court was impressed by the arguments of the tenants and the order passed by the Rent Controller was then set aside. The said order of the High Court was assailed in the Apex Court.
Before the Apex Court, it was argued that the landlord has sufficient space available in their possession for the proposed furniture business and there was no bona fide need of the tenanted portion by the landlords. It was also pleaded that the landlords are aged people and therefore there was no bonafide need of the landlords for the proposed business venture.
The Apex Court was not satisfied with the logic & reasoning of the Respondents/ Tenants that the landlords have adequate space and held that the tenants cannot dictate the adequacy of space required by the landlords for their proposed business and held thus:
On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the earlier eviction proceeding, the concerned vacant shops under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed, but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space under their possession is insufficient for the proposed furniture business.
On the age aspect, it is seen that the respondents are also senior citizens but that has not affected their desire to continue their business in the tenanted premises. Therefore, age cannot be factored against the landlords in their proposed business.
On consideration of the above aspects, the genuine need of the appellants to secure vacant possession of the premises for the proposed business is found to be established. According to us, the adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate. The special procedure for NRI landlords was deliberately designed by the Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted premises for the bona fide need of the NRI landlords and such legislative intent to confer the right of summary eviction, as a one-time measure cannot be frustrated, without strong reason.
The Apex Court accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and ordered the respondents to handover vacant physical possession of the premises by 31 December, 2021.
