Requirement Must Survive Till the Last Court: Landlord’s Need Is Not Frozen in Time – HP High Court Reinstates Eviction Order for Road-Level Premises

“Landlord’s need must not only be shown to exist at the date of the suit, but must exist on the date of the appellate decree, or the date when a higher court deals with the matter” –  In a significant ruling High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla restored an eviction order passed in favour of a retired government employee, who sought possession of a ground-floor residential unit on the basis of bonafide requirement for personal use, particularly due to age and physical convenience.

The Court, speaking through Justice Satyen Vaidya, sharply reversed the findings of the Appellate Authority-II, Kangra, which had earlier denied eviction by referring to availability of other vacant units in the same building. Reaffirming that bonafide requirement must exist at all stages of litigation, the Court held the landlord’s preference for the road-level, roadside premises as legally justified and physically reasonable, especially in old age.

“Landlord Cannot Be Told Where to Live”: Court Rejects Tenant’s Attempt to Dictate Housing Choice

The Court opened by recognizing the crux of the dispute under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – whether the landlord’s requirement for the premises was genuine and continuing, and whether subsequent availability of other units in the building could negate his bonafide need.

“The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated,” said the Court, quoting the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. MD Ehshan.

The eviction petition had originally been filed in August 2013, by Satish Kumar Choudhary, who was then nearing retirement from the Department of Printing and Stationery, H.P. He had sought possession of the premises located at MIG Plot No. 56, Cheelgari, Dharamshala, occupied by the wife and daughter of the original tenant. The Rent Controller had granted eviction in February 2023, but the Appellate Authority reversed it in May 2023, citing that the landlord already had other vacant sets in the same building.

However, the High Court examined the timeline and dismissed this reasoning. It found that while the landlord had admitted in 2022 that four other residential sets were vacant, these had become vacant after the filing of the petition, and thus could not retrospectively negate the bonafide requirement.

“Requirement Must Survive the Journey Through Courts”: Supreme Court Doctrine Applied

Justice Vaidya anchored the judgment in the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711, holding:

“If the landlord commences the proceedings for eviction on the ground of personal requirement he must be able to allege and show the requirement on the date of initiation... But that is not sufficient. This requirement must continue throughout the progress of the litigation and must exist on the date of the decree... or the date when a higher court deals with the matter.”

The High Court found that the Appellate Authority failed to apply this principle, and instead relied solely on the availability of other premises during the pendency of the case. But it was not just about availability; it was about suitability.

“The landlord had clearly stated that the demised premises were the only ones suited to his condition – they were at road level, and convenient in his old age. This was not just a preference, but a need grounded in advancing years,” the Court observed.

Interestingly, Respondent No.1 (tenant) had herself admitted during cross-examination that the unit was at road level and the landlord sought it due to age-related convenience.

“No One Can Command the Landlord's Personal Convenience”: Eviction Restored

The Court also noted that not every vacant unit is a viable alternative, especially when located on upper floors of a multi-storied building. While four other sets existed, it was not proven that any of them were on the same floor as the demised premises. The Court stated:

“The entire building is multi-storied with two residential sets on the ground floor and all others on upper floors. It is in this context that the landlord appears to have shown his inclination to occupy the demised premises only.”

The landlord’s claim was not contradicted in cross-examination. The Court emphasized that tenants cannot dictate the floor or unit where a landlord must reside, particularly when the landlord’s age and condition are undisputed.

More than eleven years had elapsed since the landlord’s retirement, and litigation had dragged on, changing circumstances along the way. But rather than defeating the claim, the passage of time and aging of the landlord strengthened the claim for a suitable residence.

“Changed Circumstances Strengthen Landlord’s Claim” – Judgment Affirms Rent Controller’s Order

Concluding that the Appellate Authority erred in law and in fact, the Court ruled:

“The learned Appellate Authority has omitted to take into consideration aforesaid facts and hence the impugned judgment passed requires interference.”

Accordingly, the judgment dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside, and the original eviction order dated 22.02.2023 by the Rent Controller was restored and affirmed.

The revision petition was allowed, and the tenants were ordered to vacate the premises. The Court made no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 18th September, 2025