Landlord Is Best Judge of His Business Needs; Pension Not a Substitute for Property Rights — Himachal Pradesh High Court Affirms Eviction for Bonafide Requirement

“Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Facts Like an Appellate Authority” — In a judgment Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld a landlord’s right to reclaim tenanted premises to expand his business and settle his son, reiterating that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and courts cannot interfere with his business choices under the garb of tenant protection.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant, affirming concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that recognised the bonafide requirement of the landlord under Section 14(3)(b)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.

“A tenant cannot dictate to the landlord how to expand his business or manage his property” — the Court observed while holding that the landlord’s right to property includes the right to choose the mode, manner, and place of business expansion.

The Court categorically rejected the tenant's repeated contention that the landlord was financially secure due to pension, stating, “Income of pension is not a perpetual income and after death of landlord, his family members including his younger son shall not be entitled for any pension.”

The landlord had filed the eviction petition in 2012 claiming bonafide need to expand his cosmetics and gift shop business and to settle his younger son, who was then studying and acting as the only caretaker of the ailing parents.

“The petitioner has waited over a decade — his son was 19 when the petition was filed and is now over 30 — yet the landlord is still awaiting possession to settle his son in business,” the Court noted, while demonstrating the prejudice suffered by landlords due to protracted litigation.

The tenant had alleged that the landlord was harassing him, even claiming that a hole was dug in the lentil of the shop to force him out, and accused the landlord of suppressing facts regarding other available shops. However, the Court held these allegations to be immaterial and unsupported.

“Bonafide need must be assessed on the landlord’s terms, not tenant’s perception” — the Court reinforced, while rejecting the tenant’s claim that alternate premises were available with the landlord.

It was observed that the premises in question were adjacent to the landlord's existing small shop, and thus “most suitable” for expanding business to accommodate his younger son. The Court noted that the tenant failed to prove that any other such “similar” shop in the vicinity had been vacated or let out by the landlord recently.

The tenant also sought protection under the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act, alleging that the landlord had rented out another premises within five years prior to the eviction petition. But the Court rejected this plea outright, stating, “It is settled that pleadings without evidence as well as evidence without pleading cannot be used by a party for its advantage.”

Reiterating the limits of revisional jurisdiction, the Court held: “The revisional power of the High Court cannot be exercised as an appellate power to reassess or re-appreciate evidence for coming to a different finding on facts.”

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78], Justice Thakur observed:

“Revision does not lie under Section 24(5) to bring the orders of the Trial Court or Appellate Authority for re-hearing of the issues raised in the original proceedings.”

The Court emphasized that revisional powers are confined to testing legality, regularity, and propriety of the findings and not intended to replace factual determinations of the subordinate authorities.

“A finding of fact recorded by Court below, if perverse, or based on no evidence, or grossly erroneous such that it results in miscarriage of justice, may be interfered with — but not otherwise,” the Court clarified.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision and directed him to vacate the shop by 31st October 2025, observing that no case for interference under revisional jurisdiction was made out.

“I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction to reverse the impugned order and judgment.”

Date of Decision: 2nd September 2025