Cannot Bank On Mother's Pension: HP High Court Allows Eviction, Says Landlord Entitled To Use Own Shop For Livelihood
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord can't be compelled to continue running his business from a rented shop when his own premises are available and his need is genuine.The Court remarked that the landlord's mother's pension is not a permanent source of livelihood, and further observed that the landlord's tenancy somewhere else established his bona fide requirement to...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord can't be compelled to continue running his business from a rented shop when his own premises are available and his need is genuine.
The Court remarked that the landlord's mother's pension is not a permanent source of livelihood, and further observed that the landlord's tenancy somewhere else established his bona fide requirement to reclaim his property for running his shop.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Petitioner cannot bank upon the salary or pension of his mother, which is not a permanent source of livelihood. The fact that the landlord was running a shop in rented premises is more than sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement of the demised premises for running his own shop.”
In 2009, the landlord initiated eviction proceedings against two tenants who had occupied his premises in the main market. He submitted that the premises were required by him to start a readymade garments business as he had no other source of income and needed earnings for livelihood and to support and maintain his family.
However, his petition was dismissed by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the ground that before the 2012 amendment to Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, landlords had no right to seek eviction from non-residential premises on grounds of personal necessity.
Aggrieved, the Landlord Approached the High Court.
The Court observed that the landlord had a genuine need for the premises, as despite being educated, he was unemployed and had to run a business from rented premises that too not in a much happening area, despite having his own shop in the main market.
Thus, the Court set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority and ordered both tenants to vacate the premises.
Case Name: Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor
Case No.: Civil Revision No.4083 of 2013 with CR No.32 of 2014
Date of Decision: 11.11.2025
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Srishti Negi, Advocate for petitioner(s) in both petitions.
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with M/s Parar Dhaulta and Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate for respondent in CR No. 4083 of 2013.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for respondent in CR No. 32 of 2014