Court comes to the rescue of landlord, orders tenant eviction

BQ: Every person has an inherent right to manage his property as per his own convenience and the tenant cannot object that the landlord has another accommodation or that he should utilise his property in some other manner. —Rajesh Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune news service

Chandigarh, February 7

The court of Rajesh Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge and appellate authority, ordered eviction of a tenant from the entire house on the ground of personal necessity in a case of partial decree passed by the Rent Controller.

The Judge said, “Every person has an inherent right to manage his property as per his own convenience and the tenant cannot object that the landlord has another accommodation or that he should utilise his property in some other manner.”

Kamal Kant purchased house no. 721, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh, on April 19, 2011, and gave two rooms and a toilet to Gurmail Singh on rent in April 2012 and when the other rooms with kitchen and garage, which were rented out to some other tenants were vacated, Gurmail Singh illegally locked the said rooms with kitchen and garage and on the other hand, the tenant claimed that he was given the entire house and not just two rooms as alleged by the owner and further denied the relationship of landlord-tenant with Kamal Kant.

But the Rent Controller passed a partial decree with regard to the premises i.e two rooms, one toilet only which was rented out to Gurmail as per the assertion made by the owner and not of the other rooms which were forcibly occupied by the respondent under the provisions of the Rent Act.

Ashok Sehgal, counsel for the landlord, contended that the Rent Controller while passing partial decree did not appreciate the admitted facts that the tenant himself had admitted his possession over the entire house in a civil suit for permanent injunction filed against the owner prior to filing of the present rent petition and once it (possession of occupier) was conceded by the landlord in rent petition, partial eviction could not be done.

After considering the contention of both parties, the appellate court held that the owner was always the landlord even if he/she failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant. In the present case, the ownership of the property stood proved on the basis of sale deed and transfer letter in favour of landlord/owner.

The appellate court further held that Section 116 of the Eviction Act was clearly applicable in the present case as Gurmail himself admitted Kamal Kant as landlord in suit for permanent injunction filed against the owner, prior to filing of rent petition by the owner in April 2015. Therefore, the appellant-tenant is estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellate court while dismissing an appeal filed by the tenant and further while modifying the orders of Rent Controller in an appeal filed by the landlord ordered eviction and directed to vacate the entire house within a period of two months.

The appellate court while dismissing an appeal filed by the tenant and modifying the orders of the Rent Controller in an appeal filed by the landlord ordered eviction and directed the tenant to vacate the entire house within two months.

The court was of the view that when eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide need, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the assumption that the requirement was not bona fide. If landlord stated that he needed to demise his premises for personal use, his need should always be presumed as correct and genuine.