Court Cannot Dictate How an 84-Year-Old Widow Should Live: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Eviction for Domestic Help as Part of Landlady’s Bona Fide Need

“Landlord Is the Best Judge of His Residential Requirement; Standard of Living Not for Courts to Prescribe” – Himachal Pradesh High Court, through a reasoned and emphatic judgment by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, dismissed three civil revision petitions filed by tenants against concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in favour of 84-year-old widow landlady Sneh Kuthiala. The central issue: whether eviction of tenants from outhouse premises could be sustained to accommodate a full-time domestic help required by the landlady. The Court answered in the affirmative, declaring:

“The landlady is the best judge of her residential requirement. She has complete freedom in the way and manner in which she chooses to live. It is entirely her own lookout and not of the court.”

Rejecting arguments alleging misuse, resale intent, and exaggerated need, the Court reiterated that “the requirement of domestic help is neither far-fetched nor whimsical” in the context of an aged, single woman who lives alone for most of the year in her Shimla residence.

“Courts Are Not to Prescribe a Standard of Living for the Landlord” – Domestic Help Recognized as a Legitimate Need

The petitioners/tenants had challenged the eviction on the basis that the landlady's claim for requiring outhouse premises to accommodate a domestic servant was an excuse for future sale of the property and that her needs were not bona fide. Dismissing this line of argument, the Court unequivocally held:

“The need of such others whose assistance is required by the landlady, although they may not be technically members of her family, are liable to be included in her bona fide requirement.”

The Court drew support from several judgments across High Courts and the Supreme Court, including Pravita Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, where it was held that:

“There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property... it is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live.”

Reiterating that domestic help, driver, cook or ayah can be valid components of residential need, especially for aged persons or those with specific lifestyle or health-related demands, the Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings that the outhouse was reasonably required.

“Attempt to Sell in the Past Cannot Defeat Present Need” – Allegations of Malafide Intention Rejected

The tenants attempted to defeat the eviction claim by arguing that the landlady had earlier attempted to sell the outhouse and thus the petition was filed with a collateral intent. The Court dismissed this submission as unfounded speculation, holding:

“A bald statement regarding a past attempt to sell, unsupported by documentary evidence, is not enough to dislodge the bona fide need.”

Referring to Krishna Kumar Rastogi v. Sumitra Devi, the Court reiterated that unless there is cogent proof of intent to evict solely for resale, a landlord’s need cannot be doubted based on speculation.

“Revisional Power Is Not a Cloaked Appeal” – High Court Refuses to Reassess Evidence on Factual Findings

Upholding the concurrent factual findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, the High Court also clarified the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. Referring to the Supreme Court’s binding judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the Court held:

“The High Court shall not reverse findings of fact merely because on reappreciation of the evidence it may have a different view thereupon.”

In categorical terms, it was clarified that revisional powers cannot be exercised as a cloak of appeal, and reconsideration of evidence is confined only to testing legality, regularity, or perversity of findings—not to re-argue the merits.

Bona Fide Need Includes Support Staff for Aged Landlady; Tenant Cannot Dictate Use of Property

Upholding the landlady’s right to determine how she wants to live and who she wishes to accommodate within her premises, the High Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. The Court concluded:

“The bona fide need of the landlady in the case at hand is genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. The impugned judgments call for no interference.”

All three civil revision petitions were dismissed, along with any pending miscellaneous applications. The judgment now stands as a significant precedent affirming the right of landlords—particularly elderly individuals—to claim residential premises not only for themselves but also for essential caregivers and support staff, without judicial second-guessing of their lifestyle choices.

Date of Decision: December 30, 2025