***

Rent laws -- A tenant cannot enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings by seeking impleadment of a third party inducted into possession without the landlord's consent or nay internal arrangements or arbitral disputes with such person.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment of parties -- Necessary and proper party -- Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot ordinarily be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is claimed -- A person can be impleaded only if he is a necessary party, without whom no effective decree can be passed, or a proper party whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved -- A stranger claiming an independent or collateral right cannot insist upon impleadment merely because his interest may incidentally be affected.

(Paras 5 to 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 Eviction petition -- Landlord and tenant -- Impleadment of third party -- Tenancy originally created in favour of petitioner -- Subsequent partnership deed, internal arrangement or arbitral award inter se partners cannot alter contractual relationship between landlord and tenant or compel landlord to implead a person whom he has never recognised as tenant -- Proposed party held neither necessary nor proper party.

(Paras 8 to 11)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction petition -- Arbitral award between tenant with his partners -- Award determining rights and liabilities between partners inter se -- Does not bind landlord, who was not a party to arbitration -- Cannot modify or prejudice independent contractual rights arising under tenancy.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 Eviction petition -- Impleadment -- Tenant cannot by his unilateral act of inducting a third person into possession without landlord's consent, compel the landlord to implead such person or enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings -- Inter se disputes between tenant and third party are alien to landlord's claim for eviction.

(Paras 10 & 11)

E. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Supervisory jurisdiction -- Interference with discretionary orders -- Power under Article 227 confined to cases of jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity or manifest failure of justice -- High Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction as an appellate court merely because another view is possible -- Order refusing impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, being based on settled principles and free from jurisdictional error, calls for no interference.

(Paras 12 to 14)

***

Mesne profits -- Location of demised premises, substantial escalation in price of gold since inception of tenancy and nature of business being conducted from premises taken into consideration -- Assessment at Rs.10,000/- per month upheld.

***

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12) -- Mesne profits -- Appeal against eviction order -- Admitted rent Rs.700/- per month -- Appellate Authority directed tenant to pay mesne profits at Rs.10,000/- per month from date of eviction order -- No documentary evidence produced regarding prevailing rent of similarly situated shops -- Appellate Authority considered location of demised premises, substantial escalation in price of gold since inception of tenancy and nature of business being conducted from premises -- Assessment of mesne profits held neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor excessive.

(Paras 6 to 6.4)

***

Pleadings -- Material facts and evidence -- Pleadings must contain material facts and not evidence -- Facts constituting proof need not be specifically pleaded.

***

Pleading and proof -- Distinction -- Pleading relates to assertion of material facts constituting cause of action -- Proof relates to evidence led to establish such facts.

***

Oral family arrangement – Validity -- A family arrangement can be entered into even by way of an unregistered oral agreement and such family settlements are enforced by Courts as they are governed by special equity principles.

***

Share certificates relating to land -- Interest in land includes building standing thereon.

***

Pleadings and proof -- Eviction suit -- Plaintiff pleaded herself co-landlord and statutory grounds of eviction -- Evidence regarding family arrangement, share certificates and bona fide requirement adduced during trial -- Material facts sufficiently pleaded and proved -- High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings on alleged absence of pleadings.

***

Comparative hardship -- Tenant acquired alternative accommodation -- Sale of alternate premises during pendency of suit indicative of attempt to defeat eviction claim -- Greater hardship held in favour of landlord.

***

Co-owner landlord -- Share certificates jointly standing in names of plaintiff and siblings -- Co-owner entitled to receive rent falls within definition of “landlord” under Rent Act -- Competent to maintain eviction proceedings.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 6 Rule 1 -- Pleadings -- Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that pleading means ‘Plaint or Written Statement’ -- A plaint is the statement of claim in which the plaintiff sets out his cause of action with all requisite particulars -- A written statement, on the other hand, is the defendant’s response, wherein he deals with each material fact alleged by the plaintiff and sets out any new facts in his favour, together with such objections as he wishes to raise to the claim.

-- The object of pleadings is to assist the Court and the parties in the adjudication of disputes. The intent is to provide fair notice of the opponent’s case, to ascertain with precision the points of agreement and divergence and thereby to bring the parties to definite issues.

-- Accordingly, pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case as they are the statement of facts in writing drawn up and filed in a Court by each party stating therein what his/her contention shall be at the trial.

Consequently, the requisites of a good and sufficient pleading are that it should contain (1) a statement of facts, not law, (2) material facts only, (3) facts, not evidence and (4) facts stated in a summary form.

(Para 26-31)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 6 Rule 2 -- Relevant facts – Facts in issue -- Every pleading must contain material facts but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved -- The material facts on which a party relies are called Facta Probanda, i.e. the facts to be proved and they are required to be stated in the pleadings -- The evidence or facts by which Facta Probanda are to be proved are called Facta Probantia and these are not to be included in the pleadings -- Facta Probanda are not the facts in issue rather, they are the relevant facts which, when proved at trial, establish the facts in issue.

-- Though it is settled law that no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the pleadings and no amount of evidence can cure a defect in pleadings, yet it is equally well settled that facts which are merely evidence of material facts should not themselves be pleaded.

-- Pleading and proof thus represent distinct stages in legal proceedings. Pleading is the formal assertion of material facts with the intent to define the case, whereas proof, by contrast, is the evidence adduced to establish those facts as true.

(Para 32)

C. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (57 of 1947), Sections 5(3), 13(1)(g), 13(1)(l), 13(2) -- Eviction suit -- Co-owner as landlord -- Appellant averred that she is a co-landlord along with her parents and siblings -- Sought possession on the grounds of bona fide need, relative hardship and the availability of alternative accommodation to the tenants – Appellant adduced evidence by way of affidavit, placing on record the requirements of her family, her own need, the family arrangement and the share certificates -- These documents and averments constituted evidence to establish the material facts pleaded and were not required to be set out in the plaint itself – Held, both the tests of pleading and proof stand satisfied -- Appellant, being the co-owner of the suit building was entitled to receive rent and thus fell squarely within the statutory definition of ‘landlord’ under the Act -- Appellant/ Plaintiff competent to seek eviction.

(Paras 36 to 46)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 3, 8 -- Share certificates -- Interest in land and building -- Transfer or holding of interest in land includes things attached to earth including building standing thereon -- Share certificates relating to land held sufficient to establish co-ownership of building also.

(Paras 42 to 44)

E. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Oral family arrangement -- A family arrangement can be entered into even by way of an unregistered oral agreement and such family settlements are enforced by Courts as they are governed by special equity principles -- Appellant held entitled to rely upon the oral family arrangement/settlement, as deposed in evidence, even in absence of a decree of partition between herself and her siblings, as it represents a subsequent development.

(Paras 48 to 50)

F. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Sections 13(1)(g), 13(2) -- Bona fide requirement -- Temporary occupation by landlord of another family flat during pendency of suit not fatal to claim -- Tenant cannot dictate suitability of accommodation to landlord -- Bona fide need of landlord established.

(Paras 51 to 53)

G. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Sections 13(1)(g), 13(1)(l), 13(2) -- Comparative hardship -- Tenant having acquired alternate accommodation -- Sale of alternate premises during pendency of suit indicative of attempt to defeat eviction proceedings -- Greater hardship held to be caused to landlord if eviction refused -- Landlord in bona fide need would otherwise be compelled to purchase or secure alternate accommodation – Eviction restored.

(Paras 54 to 61)

***

Eviction proceedings -- A co-owner landlord can maintain the petition alone and the tenant cannot compel impleadment of other co-owners.

***

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Eviction petition – Impleadment of co-owners at instance of tenant – In eviction proceedings only landlord and tenant are necessary parties and a co-owner landlord can maintain eviction petition without impleading all other co-owners – Tenant cannot compel impleadment of other alleged co-owners and eviction proceedings cannot be converted into inter se title dispute between co-owners – Order allowing impleadment set aside.

(Paras 6-10)

A. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12, 18 -- Eviction of tenant – Re-determination of outstanding rent – Power of Appellate Rent Authority -- Rent Control Appellate Authority is not the Court of first instance, it only tests the exercise of jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court -- Appellate Authority is not required to re-determine the issue of default or the outstanding amount of rent -- It has only to examine as to whether the Rent Control Court has erred in law or in facts and/or has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 30)

B. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12, 18 -- Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent -- Power of Appellate Rent Authority -- While hearing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has full discretion to pass any order in accordance with law, including an order dismissing the Appeal and/or extending the time to deposit/pay the arrears of rent, or if it finds substantial merit in the Appeal, it may issue notice and unconditionally stay the impugned order of eviction, or if it finds that the Appeal raises an argument which is plausible but improbable, it may direct the Appellant to pay/deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller pending the hearing of the Appeal -- Though the power of the Appellate Authority cannot be put in a straitjacket, yet normally speaking, a tenant must be directed to pay/deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller before an Appeal is heard by the Appellate Authority and that too when a money decree has been passed by a Civil Court which has not been stayed by the Appellate Court.

(Para 31)

C. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12, 18 -- Eviction of tenant – Pendency of appeal -- Application u/s 12 of Act, 1965 – Not mandatory -- Respondent-tenant’s submission that in an Appeal challenging an eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965 a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 is mandatory, is contrary to the explicit language of Sections 12 and 18 of the Act, 1965.

(Para 32)

D. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12 -- Eviction of tenant – Pendency of appeal -- Application u/s 12 of Act, 1965 – Held, Sections 12(1) and 12(3) procedure is to be primarily followed by the Rent Controller -- It is essentially in cases where supervening events have taken place during the pendency of Appeal, that the parties have the liberty to file an application u/s 12 of the Act, 1965 once again before the Appellate Authority like where rent has been paid till the date of filing of the Appeal, but by the time the Appeal has matured for hearing, further rent has accrued, which has not been paid -- In such a case, it would be open to the Appellate Authority to entertain a fresh application u/s 12(1) by the landlord and decide the same in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s 12 of the Act, 1965.

(Para 32)

Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (25 of 1987), Section 2(j), 14, 24 -- Death of tenant – Subsequently death of Successor – Right of other Legal heirs -- Wife is alive and living with her husband upto the date of his death and therefore, she was only entitled for succession of tenancy -- On the death of said successor/ wife tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs -- Other respondents have no justifiable claim for continuing in possession of the property under the garb of tenancy created in favour of Tenant, which was succeeded by his wife after his death -- Respondents are liable not only to be evicted and also to pay use and occupation charges for their unauthorized possession on the prevailing market rate.

(Para 43, 44)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need -- It is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his own requirements and a tenant is no one to dictate terms and conditions to the landlord.

(Para 20)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need -- Eviction of Shops on three sides of the premises of the Gurudwara Sahib -- Landlord instituted the eviction petition on the ground that the shops were to be got vacated and then the building was to be renovated in a manner that the Shri Guru Granth Sahib (holy book) could be shifted to the ground floor which would make it convenient for the devotees, especially those in advanced age, to pay obeisance – Held, said need, under no circumstances, can be said to be not bona fide.

(Para 4, 22)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Pleading of ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i)  of 1949 Act -- It is well settled that in case such ingredients are not pleaded and no objection is raised in the written statement, the petition cannot be said to be not maintainable.

(Para 10, 23)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 (4 of 1998), Section 12 – Eviction petition under Rent Act -- Religious Institution – Bar of jurisdiction -- Eviction petition instituted under the Rent Act would not be barred in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the 1998 Act.

(Para 26, 27)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 2(e) -- Building of the Gurudwara Sahib – Applicability of Rent Act -- Whether Public premises ? – Argument that in case of public premises, the Rent Act would not be applicable -- Building of the Gurudwara Sahib, cannot, in any manner, be stated to be a public premises, as a result of which, the said argument would be devoid of merit.

(Para 30)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition under rent law -- Amendment of reply – Due diligence – Trial is at fag end -- Case was fixed for arguments, but the arguments were not addressed, even after availing almost 10 opportunities and only thereafter,  the application was filed -- Respondent not able to show that in spite of due diligence, the respondent could not raise the pleas before the commencement of the trial – Proposed amendment application is not bonafide and is only a malicious attempt on the part of the respondent-tenant to prolong the lis – Application for amendment of reply dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Eviction petition -- Appointment of Local Commissioner -- No right vested in favour of a party to get the said commission issued and rather the same is an enabling provision that enables the Court to appoint a Commissioner if it is of the opinion that the same is required in a case.

(Para 5)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Eviction of tenant – Execution of order/ decree -- ‘Landlord’ has been defined as a person, who is entitled to receive the rent -- It is not synonymous with the word ‘Owner’ -- If the tenants/ appellants have any dispute with landlord, then they have to establish their rights in the separate suit -- At this stage, only the Executing Court is required to deliver possession in favour of the decree holder.

(Para 3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B – NRI landlord – Return back to India -- Eviction of petitioner/ tenant in the year 2010 -- 15 years have passed in this process -- Petitioners’ application for leave to defend was dismissed in the year 2016 -- Revision petition is pending for the last 9 years – Admittedly, eviction against remaining tenants possessing the ground floor of the same premises has become final and the possession has been handed over to the landlords – Section 13B of the ‘1949 Act’ does not provide that the landlord will return back to the Country before filing of the petition – Landlords had only filed petitions for claiming higher rent, that would not stop the landlords to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity – Revision of tenant dismissed.

(Para 5)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Assessment of provisional rent -- Not only the application for assessment of rent was dismissed, the Rent Controller has further held that the provisions of the Rent Act are not applicable – Held, on an application any finding which virtually disposes off the main case cannot be sustained in law -- Matter remanded back to the Rent Controller for decision afresh on the application for assessment of the provisional rent in accordance with the law.

(Para 7, 8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 – Eviction petition -- Landlord – Ownership – Requirement of -- In the rent proceedings, the primary issue which is to be decided between the parties is whether the person who has filed the eviction petition is the landlord or not -- The fact as to whether he is the owner or not is not a condition precedent for the said person to seek eviction.

(Para 6)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973),  Section 13, 15 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 111 – Eviction of tenant – Appeal -- Mesne profit -- Determination of lease – Tenant purchased 50% share in tenanted premises – Merger of lessee’s estate in that of larger estate of ownership shall came into effect only when tenant acquires full ownership of the estate and not merely part thereof -- Thus, mere acquisition of share of the property cannot absolve the petitioner from his liability to pay use and occupation charges.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151, Order 41 Rule 27 –  Rent appeal – Application for additional evidence – Pendency of -- Appellate Authority has to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and decide the same either while passing the main judgment or by virtue of a separate order of even date at the time of deciding the appeal, which has not been done -- Judgment of the Appellate Authority set aside, case remanded back to the Appellate Authority.

(Para 4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Eviction petition -- Amendment of written statement -- Case was at the stage of tenants’ evidence, when the application for amendment of written statement was moved – Tenant stated that he had recently come to know about another double storey commercial building to be belonging to the landlords – Held, in case, the tenant finds that landlord has any other property in his occupation, he can produce necessary evidence in this regard, for that purpose, amendment of the written statement is not required – Amendment declined.

(Para 5-7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rule 12, 21 – Eviction petition -- Discovery of documents -- A party cannot be compelled to produce the document if he/ she/ they were to contend that the original document was not in their custody -- Rent Controller rightly observed that an “appropriate inference would be drawn at appropriate stage for non-production of original documents” -- Said observation is in accordance with law.

(Para 6)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Residential building as commercial -- Once the appellant/ tenant himself is running a commercial activity at the spot, he cannot complaint on this ground.

(Para 6-9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Subsequent eviction petition – Bonafide need – Arrears of rent – Recurring cause of action -- In eviction petition, the ground of bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent are recurring causes and that landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceedings -- Merely because the earlier ejectment petitions filed in 2001 were  dismissed in 2005, cannot be ground to reject the subsequent petitions, which have been filed in March, 2010 i.e. more than 08 years from the date of filing of the earlier ejectment petitions.

(Para 14-16)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Ownership/ Use and occupation of other building --  Landlord is not obliged to disclose premises, which are not in his occupation -- Property not in occupation of the landlord must be distinguished from the owned properties and that if the property is not in occupation, no disclosure is necessary.

(Para 19, 20)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Presumption -- It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord about her/ his bonafide necessity -- If a landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand the business, his need must be presumed as bonafide.

(Para 29)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Old age of landlady -- Simply because the landlady has grown old, cannot be a ground to reject the ejectment petition , once she has proved her bonafide necessity.

(Para 32)

F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Bonafide need – Concurrent finding of fact – Power of Revisional court:

-- Revisional power of the High Court under Section on 15(6) of the Rent Act is not appellate power and so, the high court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, whether oral or documentary only because it is inclined to take a different view of facts as it were a court of facts.

-- High Court can interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller/ Appellate Authority, only if it finds that the said finding on the question of bonafide requirement is either perverse or arbitrary, or there is illegality or perversity of such a nature that it demands interference.

(Para 33-37)

Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (16 of 2021), Section 21, 38(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Rent laws -- Suit for injunction by tenant against landlord – Maintainability of -- Section 21 does not contain any provision enabling a tenant to file an application for protection against apprehended eviction otherwise than in accordance with the law -- Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by tenants against their landlords, is not barred -- Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for injunction even after enactment of the Act of 2021.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 2(c), 13 – Eviction petition -- Landlord – Co-owner – Role of -- In the absence of there being any objection by the co-owner against filing of the eviction petition, the objection raised with respect to the maintainability of the petition for non-joining co-owner cannot be sustained.

(Para 30)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Eviction petition -- Non-payment of rent -- Both the tenant as well as sub-tenant denied the relationship, they cannot claim opportunity to make non-payment of rent good.

(Para 31)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Eviction – Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent – Requirement of – Denial of relationship of landlord-tenant – Held, tenant is denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, Rent Controller rightly declined to assess the provisional rent.

(Para 4)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B – NRI landlord – Bonafide need -- Multiple ejectment petition for different shops forming part of one unit – Permissibility of -- Landlord has got possession of two shops, one shop is lying vacant for seven years and another shop from three months -- Rent petition filed in 2006, there is specific pleading as well as evidence on the part of the landlord that his wife has already retire and that he was also going to retire within a year in 2007 – After coming back to India, landlord intends to convert the entire building into one unit, which he requires for his residence as well as occupation -- It has been testified that he has four sons who are married and has also the grandchildren and they can be able to visit him only once if he settles here permanently -- Said testimony of landlord cannot disputed by the tenant, once he had deposed about his bonafide necessity – Ejectment order, upheld.

(Para 1, 4.2, 10-12)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlady wants to convert the entire ground floor into a big hall so as to open a showroom -- Tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to what should be his/ her necessity -- Neither the tenant can object in this regard nor the Court can direct the landlady to go as per the suggestions of the tenant.

(Para 5)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Landlord residing abroad -- Merely because during the pendency of proceedings, the landlady is residing outside, cannot be a ground to reject the petition -- As soon as the property is vacated, she intends to do her business by converting the ground floor into a big hall and to open a showroom and the said contention of landlady cannot be disbelieved.

(Para 6)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Resjudicata -- Earlier petition filed for bona fide requirement by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed -- However, present petition has been filed by the landlady after the death of her husband and therefore, in case she wants the demised shop for starting her business by opening a showroom by converting the entire ground-floor into a hall, for her livelihood, a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the landlady.

(Para 7)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Presumption -- Landlord, who establishes his prima facie case regarding his necessity, the Court is entitled to raise a presumption in his favour to the effect that the necessity is bona fide -- Onus then shifts upon the tenant to show that the plea of landlord is not bona fide.

(Para 7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 90 -- NRI Landlord – Ownership – Proof of – Additional evidence – 30 year old sale deed – Presumption -- Registered sale deed of 1937 produced from proper custody and being more than 30 years old document carries presumption in terms of Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act and its veracity cannot be impeached at the hands of tenant – Application to lead additional evidence in the shape of sale deed allowed – Matter remanded back to Rent Controller with liberty to tenant for rebuttal if any.

(Para 9-12)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need -- It is the landlord, who is the master of his needs -- The tenant or even the Court cannot direct the landlord about his requirement or tell him how much accommodation would be sufficient for him and his family.

(Para 35)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Bonafide need – Death of landlord – Long pendency of proceedings – Effect of -- Petition was filed by the landlord in 1980 – No merit in argument that now the requirement of the original petitioner i.e. the landlord must have ceased to exist as the said landlord has died – There is no doubt that the landlord is dead and a period of about 44 years has elapsed from the time of filing of the petition but at the same time the children of the landlord have acquired his rights and they have also been brought on record in the form of his LR, therefore the genuine requirement of the landlord to move out in 1980 still cannot be ignored.

(Para 36, 37)

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (XXXVII of 1997), Section 6 -- Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit -- Contention that there is no stay awarded, the question of such payment does not arise – It is also within the bounds of law, tenant who once entered the property in question lawfully, continues in possession after his right to do so stands extinguished, is liable to compensate the landlord for such time period after the right of occupancy expires -- Mesne profit assessed and ordered to be deposited in the registry of the Court.

(Para 18-23)

Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (25 of 1987), Section  2(j), 4, 24 – Tenant -- Fair rent – Determination of -- Expiry of lease – Power of Appellate Authority -- Respondent falls within the definition of ‘tenant’ and that the Rent Controller was having the statutory right to pass order on an application filed before it either by the tenant or the landlord for determination of fair rent -- Appellate Authority was to adjudicate the appeal within the parameters of the statutory provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and there was no occasion for it to traverse this Act and fall back on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

(Para 11-16)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition – Amendment of written statement -- Amendment sought is to clarify the location and the area of the demised premises -- Court should assist the parties in bringing on record the complete facts than to prevent them from exercising their rights on rigid technicalities -- Rent Controller, directed to provide one effective opportunity to the petitioners/ defendants to file their amended written statement.

(Para 7-9)

Rent laws -- Eviction of tenant – Appeal/ Stay application pending -- Warrant of possession – Held, purpose of filing of appeal shall stand frustrated, if the execution is culminated – Ld. Appellate Authority requested to decide the stay application, on the date fixed or maximum within a period of seven days thereafter -- In the meanwhile, the warrant of possession (if issued), shall remain in abeyance and the protection of possession of the petitioner from the demised premises, shall continue.

(Para  2-6)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent -- Tenant filed appeal against assessment order -- Said appeal was dismissed, parties directed to appear before learned Rent Controller on 09.11.2022 for further proceedings and order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent – Held, Rent Controller was required to fix a date for payment of provisional rent assessed – Eviction order set aside, parties directed to appear before the Rent Controller and to pay the arrears of provisional rent assessed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Withholding of evidence -- Adverse inference – Presumption -- Section 114 enables the Court to presume existence of certain facts, which includes drawing of adverse inference particularly when the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it -- Such presumption can be drawn only if the party intentionally withholds the best evidence.

(Para 6)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Non-examination of Landlady -- Adverse inference -- In each and every case, mere non-appearance of landlady/ landlord in the witness box would not necessarily require the Court to draw adverse inference -- It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

(Para 7)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Non-examination of Landlady -- Adverse inference -- Landlady’s husband, who is also residing with her, appeared in evidence -- He has answered all the questions, which were put to him in his cross-examination -- Courts have not erred in refusing to draw adverse inference – Revision dismissed.

(Para 7, 11)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction petition -- Titel of landlord -- Rent proceedings are summary and the landlord is not required to prove his title as in the civil case.

(Para 10)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) , Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Availability of other vacant shops -- A landlord is the best judge of his needs -- Merely because there are other shops in the building which are available with the landlord-respondent would not dis-entitle him from filing an ejectment petition -- Nothing on the record to show that the son of the landlord-respondent was either employed or was doing any business – Revision against eviction dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent -- Provisional rent assessed – Death of tenant’s wife – Assessed rent not paid -- Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 28.09.2022 and adjourned the case to 04.11.2022 permitting the tenant to pay the provisional rent -- Petitioner lost his wife on the intervening night of 04/05.11.2022 -- On account of failure to pay the provisional rent, the ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller on the same day -- On 22.01.2023, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount by way of demand draft which has been complied with and the respondents have already encashed the same -- Impugned orders of eviction set aside.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 – Non-payment of due rent -- Defence struck off -- Obligation upon the lessee to make payment of the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest on the first date of hearing, failing which the court has the power to strike off the defence of the defendant -- An obligation is cast upon him to pay throughout the continuation of the suit such monthly amount which is due within a week from the date of its accrual, failing which the Court has got the power to strike off the defence.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 15 Rule 5 – Non-payment of due rent -- Defence struck off -- Petitioner/ defendant has failed to deposit the monthly rent due, during pendency of the suit, the learned Trial Court is perfectly justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7,  8)

Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24 (1)(c) -- Leave to defend – Limitation -- No application seeking leave to defend was filed by the petitioners within stipulated period of 15 days of service of notice -- Even the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings was also filed much beyond the aforesaid statutory limit -- Rent Act being complete code, the provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable to the eviction petition filed by the respondent – Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings.

(Para 10, 11)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant -- Landlord running office of Chartered Accountant in two rooms situated behind the demised shop and he is having residential house on the first floor -- As per his version, he is father of two grown-up sons who are of marriageable age – Landlord wanted to settle down his sons in the residential portion on the first floor and he along with his wife being in old age wanted to shift in the two rooms already in their occupation in which he was running his office of Chartered Accountant and further wanted to shift his office in the front portion i.e. in the demised premises – Eviction order upheld.

(Para 12)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Intent to start own separate  business -- A landlord who is already running a business with his father cannot be denied eviction of tenanted premises on the ground that his intent to set up his own separate business is not bonafide -- Every individual has a right to take strides in life & the said opportunity cannot be curtailed at the instance of a tenant to whom right of restitution is always available in terms of Section 13(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

(Para 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent -- Provisional assessment of rent – Non-tendering of – ‘first date of hearing’ mean, the first date of hearing after determination of provisional rent and other expenses by the Rent Controller – No extension of time can be granted to the tenant for depositing the arrears of rent -- Respondent/tenant failed to tender provisionally assessed rent on the first date of hearing -- Respondent/ tenant directed to handover the vacant possession of the property along with payment of arrears of rent and ancillary charges. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002(5) SCC 440 = (2002) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16854 relied.

(Para 11-14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 15 – Service of summons -- Respondent is stated to have been served physically through a member of his family -- Respondent stands duly served -- None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) -- Appointment of arbitrator -- Landlord-tenant dispute – Lease deed would show that the parties had specifically agreed for resolution of the disputes through arbitration -- Notice to the respondent had specifically been called upon for initiation of arbitration proceedings, but to no avail – Such disputes can be adjudicated by way of arbitration – District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

(Para 6-10)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant – Bonafide need to run School -- No evidence or material to doubt the bonafide of the respondent-society --  Argument that the construction over the area has been made by the petitioners as they were only assign the plot is concerned rejected as same is being taken for the first time in the revision petition before High Court – High Court will not go into the factual aspect which have not even been taken before the Courts below – No illegality or infirmity in impugned/ ejectment order -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 11)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Sub-letting – Onus to prove – If landlord prima facie able to show that tenant has parted with possession, the onus of proof with respect to the nature of possession shifts upon the tenant -- It is for the tenant to show that in what capacity the person alleged to be sub-tenant, is in possession and in the absence of any evidence, explaining the nature of possession, sub-letting would be presumed.

(Para 8)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Sub-letting to son – Onus to prove -- Categorically averred in the rent petition that sons of tenant are in exclusive possession of the demised shop and for a valuable consideration – Admission of the tenant that his son supports him in his work and he sits at the shop only in the morning -- It became obligatory for him to bring on record material evidence so as to show that his son is merely supporting him in the joint business and not working and earning independently.

(Para 10)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Change of user – Admitted by tenant that part of this shop was used by his elder son for residential purposes; but further explained by stating that family of his son lived there only for a temporary period when his house was being built -- Onus shifted upon tenant to show that residence of his son was relocated only for a temporary period – Neither any documentary evidence has been brought on record to show that the present residence of his elder son is at a place different from the shop; nor any other family member of tenant has appeared as a witness to support this fact – Eviction allowed.

(Para 12)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 35, 36 -- Eviction – Execution -- Eviction order by Rent Controller in 2010 – Appeal of tenant dismissed in 2012 -- Execution petition was filed in the year 2019 -- Objection of petitioner-tenant dismissed and no stay order in appeal -- Warrant of the possession received back unexecuted – Impugned order for warrants of possession have been issued with a further direction to the bailiff to break open the locks of the shop in possession of the petitioner -- No illegality in the said order at all warranting interference in Revisional jurisdiction -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3A, 7 – Document -- Pen-drive -- Recording (audio-video) contained in the pen-drive is documentary evidence being an electronic record and can even be treated as an admission u/s 7, however, subject to proof of its genuineness.

(Para 8)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3A, 7, 65-B -- Arrears of rent -- Eviction petition – Voice sample comparison – Permissibility of -- Admission relating to payment of rent in pendrive -- Pendrive was permitted to be played in Court in the presence of both the parties under the orders of the Rent Controller which was never challenged by the respondent-landlord -- Same was put to respondent while he appeared as PW-1 and was made part of record as Ex.-R-1/A along with an affidavit/ certificate submitted by the petitioner-tenant as Ex. R-2 -- PW-1 disputed the voice therein to be that of petitioner-tenant -- Petitioner-tenant permitted to send his voice sample to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with the audio/video recorded in the pendrive Ex.R1/A.

(Para 9-11)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 15 – Rent revision – Concealment of facts – Effect of -- Fact regarding the SLP having been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same having been withdrawn after addressing arguments and further about the issue of ownership of the shop in dispute having been raised in the said SLP was neither disclosed before the Executing Court nor disclosed in present petition -- Litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Court, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts and come to the Court with unclean hands, are not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are they entitled to any relief – Revision petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(Para 11-13)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13, 16, 18 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3A – Eviction petition – Examined of other witnesses by landlady – Examination of landlady thereafter – Objection to -- Rent Controller can proceed with the trial by following its own procedure -- Provisions of CPC are made applicable as provided u/s 16 of Act, 1973 regarding summoning and to enforce the attendance of witnesses -- Section 18 of the aforesaid Act explained that for the execution of the orders the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are strictly applicable -- Therefore, it cannot be said that all the provisions of CPC are applicable to the petition filed under Act, 1973 – Application under Order 18 Rule 3A declined by Rent Controller, upheld.

(Para 1, 4)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 1, 13 – Eviction of lessee – Notice u/s 106 of TP Act – Termination of tenancy -- Effect of -- At the time of filing the suit, provisions of  Rent Act were not applicable to the suit property – A simple tenancy can be terminated by service of notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act -- Once a valid notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act is served, possession of tenant over the property becomes illegal and unlawful and thus, learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit with the observation that tenancy stood terminated.

(Para 11, 16)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Bonafide need – Inspection of premises – Permissibility of -- If the respondent/ tenant wants to establish that the petitioner/landlord has got any other accommodation available with him, where he can start his business that can be done by leading evidence -- A Civil Engineer engaged by the respondent/ tenant cannot be sent to inspect the entire premises and to prepare its site plan just to create evidence – Order passed  by the Rent Controller, allowing the application for inspection of property set aside.

(Para 1, 6, 9)

Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (17 of 1950), Section 14(3) – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Eviction of tenant – Suit for eviction within 5 years of tenancy -- Suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since the suit was filed – Held, passage of time beyond the period of five years would wash away the initial impediment against the suit -- To say that the landlord should now, once again, restart the proceedings would be a travesty of justice -- Expression used is ‘shall lie’ or ‘be entertained’ would really make no difference -- Objective is to create an impediment in the institution and trial of the suit for a period specified under the said Act -- Spirit of protection is fulfilled with the passage of the prescribed time period – Supreme Court is also armed with the extraordinary power under Article 142 to do absolute justice inter se the parties -- Decree of eviction passed by the first appellate court affirmed.

(Para 16-22)

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), Section 20, 30(1) – Eviction of tenant -- Deposit of rent in the Court – Effect of – Tenant can only deposit rent in the Court, as long as the landlord has refused to accept the rent -- Once the landlord expresses his willingness to accept the rent, by serving the notice dated 05.04.1995 (received on 10.04.1995), the tenant has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord -- This has not been done by the appellant – Eviction by Small Causes Court, upheld by High court -- Appeal against dismissed.

(Para 1, 11)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte eviction order – Application for setting aside of ex-parte order – Speaking order – Requirement of -- Without adverting to the evidence on record and without any discussion, the application dismissed by a cryptic and totally non-speaking order -- Once the evidence was available on the record the Rent Controller ought to have dealt with the same before deciding the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC -- Impugned order is perverse and un-sustainable in law and accordingly set aside -- Matter remanded to the Rent Controller to decide the application afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 6)