Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

High Court Upholds Eviction Order, Citing Landlord’s Bona Fide Need for Business Expansion

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, June 1, 2023: In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld an eviction order, emphasizing the bona fide need of the landlord for the expansion of his son’s business. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Madaan, highlighted the landlord’s right to decide his requirements and dismissed allegations of material fact concealment.

The case, titled “Krishan Lal and others vs. Ashok Jain,” revolved around a petition filed by landlord Ashok Jain seeking the eviction of tenant-firm Krishan Lal and his sons from a shop in Ambala Cantt. The landlord asserted that the shop was required for his son and daughter-in-law to expand their scientific equipment/material business.

Addressing the issue of concealed properties, the court noted that the landlord had disclosed the previous vacation of a shop for his daughter’s business and highlighted that the vacant shop was under his supervision. It further clarified that the landlord was not obliged to disclose other non-commercial or residential properties.

Regarding the conversion of the property from residential to non-residential use, the court found no evidence to support such a claim. It established that the shop had always been a commercial property and had adjoining shops opening towards the bazaar, negating any residential purpose.

Justice Madaan stated, “A landlord is the best judge of his requirement,” emphasizing the landlord’s right to seek possession for business expansion. The judgment also referred to the legislative safeguard against ejectments for extraneous reasons.

The court rejected the tenant’s argument that the shop’s vacancy could be utilized by the landlord’s son and daughter-in-law. It underscored the suitability of the demised shop for the expansion of the son’s business, emphasizing that it was not the tenants’ role to advise the landlord on alternative arrangements.

In dismissing the revision petition, the court held, “The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority... does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is not having any element of arbitrariness or perversity.”

Date of decision:-1.6.2023

Krishan Lal and others  VS Ashok Jain                                

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Krishan-Lal-Vs-Ashok-Jain-01-June-23-PHHC1-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News