Sitawati vs Sanjay Sharma

Alok Singh, J.—Landlord has invoked jurisdiction of this Court u/s 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the order dated 16.3.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the judgment passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and eviction petition filed by the landlord was dismissed.

Brief facts of the present case are that landlord - revisionist has filed eviction petition against the tenant - respondent herein with the allegation that initially father of the present tenant was the tenant and after his death, respondent has become the tenant of the revisionist regarding the shop in dispute; tenant has not paid or tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1993; landlord - revisionist requires the said shop for occupation i.e. Dental Clinic of her son and daughter-in-law as both are Dental Surgeon and are registered under the Haryana Medical Registration Act. Beside this, daughter of the petitioner is also a doctor, who also wants to start her own clinic as Eye surgeon. The accommodation already in possession of the landlord is not sufficient to accommodate the son, daughter-in-law and daughter to do medical practice therein.

Petition was hotly contested by the tenant. However, the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 28.7.2004 directed eviction of the tenant -respondent on the ground of bonafide, genuine and pressing need of the landlord. The Rent Controller has recorded finding that three shops where landlord and his family members are already running a clinic, are not sufficient, hence tenanted shop is required for the extension of the clinic to accommodate the son, daughter-in-law and daughter. However, in appeal, the Appellate Court has observed that landlord has not given dimension of the three shops already in possession of the landlord to prove that the accommodation available with the landlord is not sufficient, hence need of the landlord is not proved.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Undisputedly, landlord''s son and daughter-in-law are Dental Surgeon. Undisputedly, landlord''s daughter is an Eye Surgeon. Undisputedly, the landlord is having three shops in her possession where already a clinic is being run. The landlord has stated on oath before the Rent Controller, which has been accepted by the Rent Controller that the landlord requires tenanted shop for her son and daughter-in-law so that a Nursing Home can be run there for which at least one room, one lab and one lounge is required.

The Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, , in paragraph 14 has observed as under:

When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.

The Apex Court in the matter of Maganlal v. Nanasaheb 2009 (1) CCC 102 (SC) in paragraph 16 has held as under:

This Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Others, held that it is always a prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business, this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad, therefore, it is not genuine need. Further, it is held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of the business.

In the opinion of this Court, now it is settled position of law that landlord has every prerogative to expand his business. If the landlord contends that he requires the tenanted premises to expand his business, his need must be presumed as bonafide. The Rent Controller should not proceed to presume that the alleged need is not bonafide. It is not open to the Appellate Authority to say that the landlord is already in occupation of three shops, hence does not require the demised premises for the purpose of opening Nursing Home by including tenanted shop to the shops already in her possession. In the opinion of this Court, neither tenant nor the Rent Controller nor the Appellate Authority has any jurisdiction to guide the landlord that he should confine to the accommodation already in her possession. Rejection of the eviction petition by the Appellate Court merely because dimension of the shops already in possession of the landlord is not given, does not seem to be sound. Once landlord is coming forward before the Court with the stand that the landlord is already in possession of the shops and she needs a bigger place by including the tenanted shop to make it into a Nursing Home, her need should not be denied on whimsical grounds.

In the opinion of this Court, judgment passed by the Appellate Court cannot be allowed to stand. Petition is allowed. Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is set aside. Judgement passed by the Rent Controller is restored. However, in the interest of justice, tenant -respondent is granted two months'' time to vacate the premises in question.