Settlement Of Landlord's One Son Doesn't Extinguish Bonafide Need Of Other: Rajasthan High Court Restores Tenant's Eviction
While upholding the eviction of a tenant, the Rajasthan High Court has held that when the eviction was sought based on bonafide need of two family members of the landlord, fulfilment of such need for one family member by some other means did not automatically extinguish the need of the other. The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Appellant...
While upholding the eviction of a tenant, the Rajasthan High Court has held that when the eviction was sought based on bonafide need of two family members of the landlord, fulfilment of such need for one family member by some other means did not automatically extinguish the need of the other.
The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Appellant Rent Tribunal that had quashed the order of the Rent Tribunal and rejected the eviction application submitted by the petitioner.
The petitioner had two sons, and the eviction application was filed in relation to one shop on the ground that the sons wanted to start a business of auto parts and computer hardware from the disputed shop.
This application was allowed by the Tribunal, however, the order was reversed by the Appellate tribunal. Hence, the petition was filed before the Court.
The argument of bonafide requirement was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the the younger son was running an ice-cream parlour.
After hearing the contention and perusing the records, the Court highlighted the considerations of the Rent Tribunal in allowing the application. It was stated that during the proceedings, one more shop got vacated wherein the younger son started operating an ice-cream parlour. However, the bona fide need of the elder son still remained.
This decision was changed by the Appellate Tribunal merely based on the fact the need of one of the sons stood satisfied and the requirement was claimed jointly for both sons.
In the background of this record the Court opined that if the requirement was raised for two people for carrying business, and during suit's pendency one got alternative premises, it could not be presumed that requirement of other automatically got satisfied.
“The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has nowhere recorded a finding that both the sons were carrying on the business of an ice-cream parlor…Once it is found that only one son is carrying on business in the shop which became available during the pendency of the suit, the requirement of the other son could not have been said to have been satisfied.”
The Court further observed that a tenant could not dictate the landlord as to where and in what manner the business should be carried. It was held to be well settled that the requirement of the landlord need not be a dire or pressing one. Eviction could happen if the requirement was genuine and bona fide.
In this light, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was held to be perverse and illegal. Accordingly, the order was set aside and the respondent was granted six months to vacate.
Title: Pratap Singh Hada v Rajkumar Jhamb
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 107