HC: Tenant's re-entry right not absolute

Legal Correspondent

Advertisement

Shimla, March 23

Tenants do not have an absolute right of re-entry into newly constructed premises. The Himachal High Court held this while disposing of a case related to the tenants’ right of re-entry.

What Court said

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed that courts had to determine the same keeping in view given facts and circumstances of the case, including the purpose for which reconstruction or rebuilding of the premises has been proposed and permitted and the bona fide requirement of the landlord.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed, “A tenant has been granted the right of re-entry in the Act itself. However, such a right shall not to be an absolute right, as courts have to determine the same keeping in view given facts and circumstances of the case.”

The court stated, “If a premises after rebuilding or reconstruction is to be rented, tenants shall definitely have the right of re-entry into the premises, in accordance with law. For example, if a premises is ordered to be vacated for the bona fide requirement of the owner for utilisation in a better way by converting the residential building into a commercial complex, in such an eventuality, the tenants living in the residential premises may not claim re-entry into the newly constructed commercial complex for residential accommodation.”

The court said, “Similarly, there may be a case where the landlord intends to expand his business and shall have the requirement of more space for commercial activity by rebuilding or reconstructing the premises. In such an eventuality also, it may not be justified to impose a tenant upon him, causing curtailment of his plan of extension of his business.”

The court observed, “In a given case, a building may be proposed to be reconstructed or rebuilt for own residential purpose with no proposal to let it out. In such an eventuality, a tenant cannot be thrust upon the owner of the premises by way of re-induction or re-entry into a house, particularly designed and constructed in a manner that there is no scope for letting out a portion thereof, as the existence of any other family in such premises may cause interference in privacy. Such re-entry or re-induction shall amount to depriving a person of his right of full enjoyment of his property for no fault on his part, but for the only reason that he or his predecessor had provided a rented accommodation to someone in the past, as per the circumstances prevailing at that time.”