Pension Is Not A Perpetual Income, Cannot Override Bonafide Need Of Premises By Landlord's Family: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pension income cannot substitute a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises to settle his son in business.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Income of pension is also not a perpetual income and after death of landlord, his family members including his younger son shall not be entitled for any pension”.

The Landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(3)(b)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act,1987, on the ground that he had bonafide requirement of the premises for his younger son, who was the only caretaker of his and his ailing wife.

He contended that he had to settle his younger son by expanding his business of gifts and cosmetics in the adjacent shop, which was acquired by the tenant.

In response, the tenant contended that the landlord was not in need of the premises as he was getting a sufficient pension and was also having sufficient accommodation for expansion of his business.

The Rent Controller held that the landlord had proved his bona fide requirement and directed the tenant to vacate the shop, this was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act,1987.

The Court reiterated that “It is settled law that landlord has a right to put his property for better use and to obtain higher income. He has a right to choose the place for the business which is most suitable to him”. 

Further, the Court observed that the eviction petition was filed in 2012, when the landlord's son was 19 years old. Noting that 13 years had passed, and now his son has crossed 30 years of age, the landlord is still waiting for the eviction of the shop to settle with his son.

Also, rejecting the tenant's contention, the Court held that a pension is not a permanent income and after the landlord's death, his son would not be entitled to the pension.

Thus, the Court upheld the decision of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority and directed the tenant to vacate the shop.

Case Name: Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi

Case No.: Civil Revision No. 109 of 2016

Date of Decision: 02.09.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat, Advocate vice Mr. Abhishek Banta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order