-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“Need in the Evening of Life Is Not a Mere Desire—It Is the Right to Live with Dignity”, In a judgment reaffirming the autonomy of landlords and the humane application of rent laws, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a tenant’s revision petition and upheld concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority granting eviction.
The Court, through Justice Vikram Aggarwal, held that an 86-year-old landlady’s bona fide personal necessity to have her divorced daughter live with her in their own home could not be treated as a mere “wish or greed,” as alleged by the tenant.
“The landlord is the best judge of their own requirements, and a tenant is absolutely no one to dictate terms or manner of use,” the Court ruled.
The dispute centered around House No. 1162, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh, specifically the first floor, which was under tenancy since 2008. The original tenant, Raj Arora, was later represented by his legal representatives upon his death. The landlady, Smt. Santosh Lamba, sought eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming the space for her divorced daughter, a retired school teacher, to live with her in their own house.
Previously, the ground floor had been vacated on similar grounds in 2015, but due to the landlady suffering a paralytic stroke, and her husband’s subsequent death, she could not occupy it.
The tenant alleged the eviction was merely to re-let the premises at higher rent and challenged the landlady’s need as fabricated, citing her non-occupation of the ground floor and availability of the second floor.
Bona Fide Personal Necessity of Landlady – Need Is Genuine and Not a Pretext
Justice Aggarwal firmly rejected the tenant’s argument that the landlady’s requirement was speculative. He observed:
“In the evening of her life, the respondent-landlady wishes to settle down in her own house with her daughter, who has been divorced and is due to retire. That cannot be termed a mere desire or greed—it is her right to live with dignity.”
He emphasized that the need was not just of the daughter but of the landlady herself, who wanted her daughter nearby in old age. The Court reiterated that:
“It would be the absolute wish of the landlord as to which portion of the property they would require and how they wish to utilize it.”
Landlord Is Master of His Own House – Floor Preferences Not for Tenant to Decide
The Court rejected the contention that the second floor was available, and therefore, the eviction was unnecessary. It held:
“The tenant is absolutely nobody to suggest that the daughter of the landlady should reside on the second floor. A person is entitled to independent living arrangements, and such micro-management is not the tenant’s business.”
Even if the second floor was technically vacant, the landlady and her daughter had the right to choose where to reside within their own house.
Non-Occupation of Ground Floor After Earlier Eviction – Health Circumstances Justify Inaction
The tenant relied heavily on the fact that the landlady and her husband did not move into the ground floor after it was vacated earlier, arguing that this undermined her bona fide need. The Court dismissed this, observing:
“She suffered a paralytic stroke in 2015 and lost her husband in 2019. Old age and illness cannot be used against a landlady to doubt her genuine intent.”
Tuition Classes by Daughter – Not Misuse of Residential Premises
The tenant also claimed that the daughter would misuse the property by taking tuition classes post-retirement. The Court found this argument baseless:
“If a retired teacher teaches a few students, it cannot be said to violate the character of the residential property. This was not even the primary ground of eviction.”
The Court noted that taking tuitions is not equivalent to running a commercial enterprise, especially when incidental and for sustenance.
Absence of Explicit Pleading on Daughter’s Non-Ownership – Not Fatal
The tenant argued that Section 13(3)(a)(i) was not satisfied because the landlady did not specifically plead that her daughter had no other accommodation in Chandigarh.
The Court held that this was immaterial, because:
“The projected need was that of the landlady, not of the daughter independently. Even otherwise, necessary evidence was led, and the requirement of pleading is not rigid.”
Referring to Harbhajan Singh v. Lakhbir Singh, the Court held that even if technical pleadings were absent, proof by evidence is sufficient compliance.
It further noted that:
“No such objection was raised by the tenant in the written statement, and therefore, it cannot be raised at this belated stage.”
Additional Evidence Application – A Delay Tactic
The tenant’s attempt to introduce additional evidence, including claims about the landlady re-letting the vacated portion and misuse by way of tuition, was rejected as an attempt to delay the matter. The Court found no procedural or substantive error in the Appellate Authority’s refusal to entertain that application.
Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – No Perversity Found
Finally, the Court reiterated that in revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings by lower authorities can only be interfered with if there is perversity or manifest illegality.
“No such perversity has been shown in the present case. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have meticulously evaluated the evidence and arrived at just conclusions.”
Upholding the dignity of old age and the autonomy of landlords in deciding their living arrangements, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision petition and affirmed the eviction order. The Court underlined that tenants cannot micro-manage a landlord’s choices, especially when the need is backed by genuine personal necessity.
As the Court remarked: “The demised premises is a part of a home built with effort and purpose. To tell a mother she cannot house her daughter in her own property is to deny her both autonomy and dignity.”
Date of Decision: 4 July 2025
