Vikas v. Jai Bhagwan Mittal and Others

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the

Vikas Jai Bhagwan Mi

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

for

Res MANDEEP PA

1.

tenant challengi Jind vide order vide order dated dismissed and th Brief Facts

2.

Bri present revision

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

VERSUS ittal and Others

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate wit r. Aayush Bansal, Advocate for th r. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate wi r. Abhinav Gupta, Mr. Jatinder K r. Sourav Bajaj, Advocate contesting respondent No.1. spondents No.2 to 4 are proform -.- ANNU J. e present Civil Revision Petition ing the concurrent findings recor r dated 31.05.2023 and by the d 23.09.2025, whereby the appea he order of eviction passed by th iefly stated, the facts of the ca n petition (petitioner–landlord b

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-7716-2025 (O&M) served on:-31.10.2025 onounced on : 04.12.2025 ploaded on:- 04.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU th the petitioner. ith Kansal, Advocates and ma respondents. n has been filed by the petition rded by the learned Rent Control learned Appellate Authority, Ji al filed by the petitioner–tenant w he Rent Controller was upheld. ase are that the respondent in before the Rent Controller) file

- ner– ller, ind, was

petition under S 1973 seeking ev near Manju Hot the year 1992 to his son Subhash away, the presen of rent is ₹560/– arrears of rent w non-payment.

3.

It i extremely old a structure. The l requires the pre restaurant busin own possession eviction petition vacate all five yards for runni pleaded that his Hotel Pelican, G to have requeste the filing of the

4.

Up raising several Section 13 of the Haryana Urban viction of the tenants from a sho tel, Jind. According to the landlo o one Shri Chabil Dass at a mont h continued in occupation as a le nt tenants stepped into possessio – per month. The allegation of th w.e.f. 01.01.2007, and therefore, is further the case of the land and has become dilapidated, wit andlord has also pleaded bona emises for his son Rahul Mittal ness. The landlord owns five sho n while the other four are wi ns have been filed against each shops and reconstruct a new bu ing the proposed hotel and re s son Rahul has acquired expe Ghaziabad and has no other busin ed the tenants to vacate the prem present eviction petition. on notice, the tenants appeared preliminary objections. They

n (Control of Rent & Eviction) A op situated opposite Old Bus Sta ord, the shop was initially let ou thly rent of ₹300/–. Upon his dea egal heir. After Subhash also pas on of the shop, and the current r he landlord is that the tenants are eviction is sought on the ground dlord that the shop in question th several cracks developing in fide requirement, asserting that l, who intends to start a hotel ops in total, one of which is in th different tenants, and separ of them. The landlord proposes uilding over the entire 315 squ estaurant business. He has furt erience in hotel management fr ness at present. The landlord clai mises but without success, leading and filed a joint written statem y contended that they have

- Act, and, ut in ath, ssed rate e in d of n is t he and his rate s to uare ther rom ims g to

alternative acco frivolous and fil the ground of n deposited/paid r for use and claim It was further employed, marr related to shoe m ownership of se been recently tr Sushil Kumar feasibility of con is devoid of mer

5.

On following issues

1.

2. OP

¶3to f

4.

6.

examined himse ommodation for their livelihoo led without any bona fide require non-payment is not available to rent on 23.01.2017. They denied med that they are running their pleaded that the landlord's s ied and residing in Delhi, where manufacturing. The tenants alleg everal other commercial properti ransferred to the landlord's son only to create a false ground nstructing a hotel on 315 square rit. n the basis of the pleadings, the l s: Whether the petitioner (land tenants from the shop stated in t Whether the petition is not PR Whether the petitioner has n file the present case in hand? OP Relief. ereafter, both sides led evid elf as PW-1, Rahul Mittal as PW

od and that the petition is fa ement. The tenants also alleged t o the landlord as they had alrea d that the shop is damaged or u business smoothly in the premis son Rahul Mittal is already s e he is allegedly running an indus ged that the landlord had concea ies in Jind, and that two shops h Bhaskar Mittal and to his brot d of need. They also denied e yards and asserted that the petit learned Rent Controller framed dlord) is entitled to the ejectment the petition? OPR maintainable in the present for no cause of action and locus sta PR dence. The respondent–petitio W-2, and the Local Commissio

- alse, that ady nfit ses. elf-stry aled had ther t of rm? andi oner

Prem Chand as receipts, written from Hotel Pelic

7.

On documents such municipal asses Rahul to demon any hotel busine Findings of the

8.

On submissions ad Controller allow order. Findings of The

9.

Ag learned Appella application seek certain revenue deeds and some said documents landlord was in deliberately con however, the le evidence s PW-3, and tendered docume n agreement, and certificate of can. n the other hand, the tenants exam h as Aadhar card of Rahul, F ssment register entries, photogra nstrate that he is not residing in J ess. e learned Rent Controller n perusal of the material placed o ddressed by learned counsel f wed the eviction petition filed b e Appellate Authority grieved by the said order, the ten ate Authority. Along with the a king permission to lead addition e documents, including Jamaba correspondence from the Munic s formed part of public record n ownership and possession o ncealed. The said application earned Appellate Authority allo

ents including the site plan, r training obtained by Rahul Mi mined Vikas as RW-1 and produ Facebook profile of Rahul Mit aphs, and educational certificate Jind and is not interested in runn on record and after considering for the parties, the learned R by the landlord vide the impugn nants preferred an appeal before appeal, the tenants also moved nal evidence by placing on rec andi, mutation entries, conveya cipal Department, asserting that d and would demonstrate that of other properties which he h was contested by the landlo owed the application for additio

- rent ittal uced ttal, e of ning Rent ned d an cord nce had ord,

10.

Aft trial court reco consideration, n demised premis was initially fou The arrears had controversy bef landlord's plea o

11.

as PW-1 and ful adjoining shops hotel and restau deposed that Ra undergone train establishment. R that he and hi association with mention of be conclusively est intention to retu to negate a duly

12.

permanently set no evidence had ter hearing learned counsel for th ord, the Appellate Authority namely whether the requirement es was bona fide. It was noticed unded on two grounds i.e. arre been cleared during the penden fore the Authority was confine of personal requirement. e Authority recorded that the lan lly supported his pleadings that h s forming a compact block of 3 rant to be run jointly by him and ahul Mittal was unemployed, resi ning at Pelican Hotel to prepare Rahul Mittal also entered the w s family sometimes stayed in h the business plans of his father eing "self-employed" on Face tablish that he had a settled bu urn to Jind. It was held that socia y pleaded and proved requiremen e Authority rejected the tenants ttled in Delhi or was running a d been produced to establish exis

he parties and examining the en formulated the central issue t of the landlord-respondent for d that although the eviction petit ars of rent and personal necess cy of the petition, and therefore ed only to the genuineness of ndlord stepped into the witness b he required the shop, along with 15 square yards, for establishin d his son Rahul Mittal. The landl iding with him at Jind, and had a e himself for running the propo witness box as PW-2 and admit Delhi, but he did not deny r. The Authority observed that m ebook by Rahul Mittal did usiness in Delhi or that he lack al media posts cannot form the ba nt. s' contention that Rahul Mittal h viable business there. It noted t stence of any such settled busine

- ntire for sity. box ng a lord also osed tted his mere not ked asis had that

On the contrary garment busines permanent. The residing outside requirement, es government or s

13.

landlord was no the premises, n commercially ad it ideal for the landlord had alr adjoining shops Authority reiter own need, and n the landlord sho

14.

landlord's case unsafe for huma PWD (B&R), w and unfit for h remained part o appointed by th summon any e y, evidence showed that Rahul ss in Jind, thus revealing that his e Authority held that merely bec e the town cannot be a ground to specially when there is no sug semi-government service from w e Authority further held that ot a mere desire but a genuine n noting that the entire 315 squ dvantageous location with acces construction of a hotel and rest ready filed eviction petitions aga s, clearly demonstrating the in rated the settled position that th neither the tenant nor the courts ould utilise his property. e Authority then examined in that the building was more th an habitation. The report of the was relied upon, which stated tha habitation. Although the repor of the record and was prepared b he Court. The Authority held expert witness to rebut the

l Mittal had earlier worked in s occupation had not been stable cause a landlord's son is curren disbelieve the landlord's bona f ggestion that Rahul is engaged which he cannot disengage. the requirement pleaded by need. It considered the suitability uare yards block is situated in ss to roads on all four sides, mak taurant. It was emphasised that ainst all four tenants occupying ntegrated nature of his plan. T he landlord is the best judge of can dictate how or in what man n detail the second limb of han 50 years old, dilapidated a e Local Commissioner, an SDO at the structure was old, danger rt was not exhibited formally by an impartial government offi that the failure of the tenants technical findings of the Lo

- e or ntly fide d in y of n a king his nner and O of ous , it icer s to

Commissioner s issued by the Authority held tenants had ne corroborated the

15.

On other commerci was irrelevant b conversion. As the petition, the were part of a fa could not be r properties does landlord is actua failed to establis

16.

produce an appr have the premis approach author approved map a various preceden the facts since t also a proven di strengthened the landlord's case Municipal Committee regardin that such absence was not co ever sought repair, and the b e landlord's plea. n the tenants' plea that the land al properties, the Authority held because it cannot legally be use to the allegation of transfer of u e Authority accepted the landlor amily settlement and that proper ead against the landlord. It he not defeat the landlord's need ally occupying a similar alternati sh. e Authority rejected the argume roved building plan. It noted tha ses vacated and demolished, an rities for sanction. The tenant as a pre-condition for eviction. nts relied upon by the tenants bu the present case involved not on lapidated structure.

e. Even though no notice had b ng the dilapidated condition, onclusive because the landlord building's age and visible cra dlord owned agricultural land a d that ownership of agricultural la ed for a hotel or restaurant with urban properties before the filing rd's explanation that these transf rties transferred prior to the petit eld that mere ownership of ot d unless the tenant proves that ive premises, something the tena ent that the landlord was obliged at the first step in construction is nd only thereafter can the landl cannot insist on production of The Authority also considered ut held that none squarely applied nly genuine personal necessity

- een d or acks and and hout g of fers ther ants d to s to lord f an d to

17.

Ult successfully pro building being d speculative, uns that no other a costs, upholding tenant .

18.

Ag petitioner has ap is contested by of notice of mot Submissions on

19.

Lea suffer from grav material placed and that the pet the petitioner, t whose alleged n 11/1, Phase II, V running a flouri it is wholly ag engaged in a th shift to a small timately, the Appellate Autho oved both grounds, bona fide p dilapidated and unsafe. The tena supported by evidence, and large rgument survived, the appellate g the judgment of the Rent Co grieved by the concurrent findin pproached this Court by way of respondent no.1-landlord at the tion. n behalf of the petitioner-tenan arned counsel for the petitioner ve illegality, misreading of evide on record. It was contended that tition is wholly motivated by gr the landlord is nearly 75 years need the premises are sought, has Vijay Vihar, Rohini, along with shing industry of manufacturing gainst human conduct and com riving business in the NCR reg town like Jind merely to start

ority held that the landlord h ersonal requirement as well as ants' entire defence was found to ely based on conjectures. Observ e court dismissed the appeal w ontroller and directing eviction ngs of the Courts below, the tena the present revision petition, wh e preliminary stage before issua nt r argued that the impugned ord ence and non-consideration of v at there is no bona fide requireme eed and not by need. According old and his son Rahul Mittal, s permanently settled in Delhi at h his wife and children, where h g shoe uppers. It was submitted t mmon sense that a person alrea ion would abandon everything a a hotel or restaurant. The evict

- had o be ving with n of ant-hich ance ders vital ent, g to for t L-e is that ady

plea is therefor tenant.

20.

It overlooked the s of need of the l son is occupyin have not vacated Ex.R3 and Ex.R the Main Bazar, the name of his Sushil Mittal im deliberate conce

21.

It w urban Jind inclu Rajbaha No.7, n and in Hanuma order to secure documentary ev the landlord to e

22.

Ass the Local Comm undertake any c alone cannot le noted by the Lo re asserted to be a fictitious gr was further argued that the settled legal requirement that wh landlord's son, it must be prove ng any other suitable building in d such building without sufficien R4 to substantiate that the landlor , opposite Police Station City, Jin s other son Bhaskar Mittal and mmediately before the filing of t ealment of material facts. was submitted that the landlord i uding valuable vacant plots on o near Palika Bazar, near Telepho an Gali, Jind City, but all these the eviction of a poor tenant. T vidence, failed to appreciate tha eviction. sailing the finding of dilapidatio missioner conducted only a super chemical analysis or structural ead to a finding of inhabitable ocal Commissioner is minor, abo

round created only to oust an Courts below have complet hen eviction is sought on the grou en that neither the landlord nor n the same urban area and that th nt cause. Reliance was placed up rd had two commercial building nd, one of which was transferred another in the name of his brot the petition, thereby demonstrat s in possession of vast propertie old Court Road, Rohtak Road, n one Exchange, on old Hansi Ro have been malafidely withheld The Courts below, despite detai at the concealment itself disenti on, learned counsel contended t rficial, visual inspection and did testing, and that visual inspect condition. Even the alleged cr ove roof level, and is in the exter

- old tely und hey pon s in d in ther ting s in near oad, d in iled tles that not ack

plaster rather th after the landlo fallen vacant. N whether it is rep building canno unimpeachable dilapidated cond

23.

Lea not even clearly premises or the misread the repo appointment of condition, and th

24.

It w Associates claim fabricated and witness from P shown anywher courts failed to or training proof

25.

Las position, issue holding that the action. The find an in the structural wall. It was a ord deliberately demolished the No report exists regarding whe pairable or irreparable. It was fur ot form the basis of declar evidence showing that the e dition. arned counsel submitted that the y specify whether the alleged cr adjoining shop of Shanti Parka ort. It was argued that the landl f a second Local Commissione he courts below wrongly decline was also urged that Ex.P6, th med to show that Rahul Mittal manipulated document which i Pelican Associates appeared to re in the certificate, and no tra draw adverse inference for non-f by either the landlord or his son stly, it was argued that in vie Nos. 2 and 3 ought to have b e petition is not maintainable an dings of the courts below are sta

argued that the crack appeared o roofs of adjoining shops that h ether the crack is old or new, rther submitted that mere age of ring a building unsafe with ntire integrated structure is in e Local Commissioner's report d rack relates to the present tenan ash, and therefore the courts bel lord himself opposed the prayer er, despite the serious dispute ed that request. e alleged certificate from Peli had undertaken hotel training, i is inadmissible in evidence, as prove the document, no hotel aining details are mentioned. T -production of any diploma, deg n. w of the above legal and fact been decided against the landl d that the landlord has no cause ated to be the outcome of manif

- only had , or f the hout n a does nted low for on can is a l is gree tual lord e of

irregularities, le and 23.09.2025 Submissions on

26.

Lea of both courts b reasonable requ reconstruction o not proved a s exclusive posse pertain either to for the propose residence of the is not for the te business. The L and the tenants, its credibility. I perversity has b Findings of Thi

27.

Hav record, this Cou illegality or juri The Rent Contro evidence-based eading to miscarriage of justice are liable to be set aside. n behalf of the respondent - lan arned counsel for the responden below and submitted that the la uirement for demolition of the of a hotel/restaurant for his son. single alternative suitable comm ession and that the documents o ancestral agricultural land or pr d business. It was contended th e son or timing of training do not enant to dictate where the landlo Local Commissioner's report is a having failed to produce any co It was further argued that the s een shown. is Court ving considered the rival submi urt finds that the impugned order isdictional error warranting inte oller as well as the Appellate Au analysis of both the bona fide r

e, and the orders dated 31.05.20 ndlord nt supported the concurrent findi andlord has proved a genuine a e entire block of five shops a It was argued that the tenants h mercial building in the landlor produced as additional evide roperties not capable of being u hat minor contradictions regard t affect the core requirement, an ord or his son should conduct th a court-appointed neutral inspect ounter-expert, cannot now challen cope of revision is limited and issions and carefully examined rs do not suffer from any pervers erference in revisional jurisdicti uthority have undertaken a detail requirement of the landlord and

- ngs and and have rd's nce used ding nd it heir nge d no sity, ion. led,

condition of the sound appraisal

28.

the evidence. Th land, ancestral p nor suitable nor hotel/restaurant. in evidence as prove that any o Thus, unlike cas possession, no s accepted.

29.

Reg and PW-2, sup landlord intends hotel-cum-restau integrated build forming part of cannot intend to not oblige a lan business. What of residence.

30.

On Commissioner's e premises, and this Court is sa of material. e plea of concealment raised by he documents pressed by the pet plots, or co-owned immovable p r available exclusively to the lan . The transfer of two shops with part of an earlier arrangement, of these shops were vacant or sui ses where the landlord conceals such circumstance arises here, an garding bona fide requirement, ported by the Local Commissi s to reconstruct the entire block urant. The requirement is not ding, which by its very nature the block. The argument that the o establish business at Jind is who ndlord's son to abandon his cu is relevant is the genuineness of n the question of condition s findings on the age and structu

atisfied that both findings rest o y the tenants is not borne out fr titioners relate either to agricultu properties which are neither vaca ndlord for establishing the propo hin the family stands duly explain and the petitioners have failed itable for the intended constructi vacant commercial premises in nd the plea of mala fides cannot , the consistent evidence of PW ioner's report, establishes that k of shops into a new commerc t of an isolated shop but of necessitates vacation of all sh e son resides in Delhi and theref olly speculative. The Rent Act d urrent residence before plannin f the intention, not the present pl n of the premises, the Lo ural infirmities of the building h

- on a rom ural ant, osed ned d to ion. his t be W-1 cial ops fore does ng a lace ocal

been correctly a report or to Commissioner's value. The min finding that the patched walls an of chemical ana Commissioner r where the oppos

31.

excluded, the re not dependent o prior training o genuine desire t

32.

Another Vs. Jit and Another V assist them. In b in his exclusive fide requiremen proved, the prop ancestral sites, o alternative comm of an integrated appreciated. The tenants led no show that the structure is s report, unless convincingly nor description of the crack doe e building, constructed more th nd decayed material, requires de alysis or lab testing is misplaced reports in eviction cases involvi sing party produces no technical e objections to Ex.P6 do not a equirement does not fail, becaus on the son already being trained. r qualification for the intended o use the premises. e judgments relied upon by th t Ram and Another 2008(4) RC Vs. Balwinder Singh and Other both cases the landlord had conc possession and the Courts held t nt. In the present case, no such v perties relied upon by the tenan or family transfers predating the mercial buildings. Further, thos d block of shops or a reconstruct

o expert evidence to contradict safe. A court-appointed Lo rebutted, carries due evidenti es not diminish the overall fact han five decades ago with visi emolition. The challenge to the l d, as courts routinely rely on Lo ing building condition, particula material in rebuttal. assist the tenants. Even if Ex.P6 se the landlord's bona fide need A landlord is not required to pro d business; the law requires onl e tenants, namely Ajit Singh a CR (Civil) 390 and Harbans Sin r 2020(2) RCR (Rent) 119, do cealed vacant commercial premi that such concealment negates bo acant alternative premises has b nts are agricultural lands, co-own petition, none of which are suita e cases did not involve demolit tion plan, whereas the present c

- ocal iary tual ible ack ocal arly 6 is d is ove ly a and ngh not ises ona een ned able

specifically rest hotel/restaurant. the cited cases d Conclusion

33.

Thu appreciation of requirement and

34.

Acc and the concurr Authority warra

34.

Pen

December 04, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe ts on the landlord's need to rec . The factual matrix is therefore does not apply. us, the findings of both cou evidence, consonant with the le d demolition and reconstruction u cordingly, this Court holds that rent judgments passed by the R ant no interference. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

construct the entire structure int e entirely different, and the ratio urts below are based on pro egal principles governing bona f under the Rent Act. the petition is dismissed in lim Rent Controller and the Appell stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- to a o of oper fide mine