Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title After Paying Rent – Bona Fide Need of Grandson Is Landlord’s ‘Own Use’: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction

"Requirement of Premises for Married Grandson is Bona Fide, Tenant Cannot Dictate Terms to Landlord" – In a significant reaffirmation of landlord rights under rent law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by tenants who challenged concurrent findings of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, holding that once tenancy is admitted and rent has been paid, the landlord-tenant relationship stands established — and bona fide requirement for dependent family members is a sufficient ground for eviction.

Hon’ble Justice Sudeepti Sharma of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the eviction of tenants from a residential property in Ambala, rejecting their claim of ownership and allegations of procedural unfairness. The High Court emphasized that the requirement of the landlord’s married grandson for residence constituted bona fide necessity, and that the tenants’ belated attempt to introduce additional evidence was rightly rejected.

“Once Rent Is Paid and Ownership Is Not Disproved, Landlord-Tenant Relationship Stands Established”: High Court

The High Court began by reaffirming the core factual and legal findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. It observed that the landlord had proved her ownership through a registered sale deed (Ex. P-3), and the tenants had admitted the tenancy and even paid rent through Court via an E-challan dated 30.05.2018, which was released in favour of the landlord on 24.07.2018.

Justice Sharma noted, “The petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant but failed to state in which capacity they are in possession of the demised premises. No evidence was led to prove ownership. Mere denial, without substantiating an alternate legal basis of possession, is not sufficient.”

The Court held that in light of the rent tendered and failure to rebut title, the relationship of landlord and tenant was clearly established under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

Tenant’s Obstruction to Evidence Rejected – Bona Fide Requirement of Grandson Recognized

On the issue of personal necessity, the respondents had sought eviction for the use of their married grandson, claiming that no suitable alternative accommodation was available. The petitioners failed to bring any evidence to rebut this claim.

Justice Sharma relied extensively on the binding precedents of the Supreme Court, including Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119, Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397, and Ajit Singh v. Jit Ram (2008) 9 SCC 699, to reiterate that the landlord is the best judge of their own requirement.

Quoting Sarla Ahuja, the Court observed:

“It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises… While deciding the question of bona fides… it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.”

The Court stressed that the law does not require the need to be dire or absolute. A requirement that is “honest, reasonable and not tainted with oblique motive” is sufficient.

The High Court firmly rejected the tenant’s contention that the grandson’s need did not constitute the landlord’s personal requirement, affirming the broader judicial understanding that “‘his own use’ includes use by dependent family members.”

Applications for Additional Evidence an Attempt to Fill Lacunae – Due Diligence Not Shown

In a separate but linked issue, the tenants had sought to introduce new documents at the appellate stage, claiming to possess an unregistered “full and final agreement” from 1995 allegedly executed between petitioner No.2 and the original allottee. However, the High Court found that these documents were within the knowledge and possession of the petitioners during trial, and no credible explanation was given for their non-production.

Justice Sharma, rejecting these applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, emphasized:

“The documents sought to be produced by way of leading additional evidence were old documents and were well within the knowledge of the petitioners. No plausible explanation or cogent reason was furnished… therefore, both applications were rightly dismissed.”

The Court noted that the tenants had earlier been granted indulgence by the High Court to cross-examine the landlord’s witness subject to cost — but they neither appeared nor paid the costs, leading to ex parte proceedings.

Revisional Scope is Limited – Concurrent Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With

Dismissing the revision petition, the Court observed that the findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were based on evidence and showed no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error. Under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban Rent Act and Section 107 CPC, the High Court reiterated its limited scope of interference in revision.

“The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. The Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence where concurrent findings are based on cogent material.”

Tenant Cannot Blow Hot and Cold – Rent Paid, Title Not Disproved, Eviction Justified

In conclusion, the High Court’s ruling is a robust reaffirmation of landlord rights under rent law, particularly concerning bona fide need and denial of relationship after payment of rent. It also sends a strong message against litigants seeking to abuse procedural loopholes by attempting to fill evidentiary gaps at the appellate stage.

“The landlord’s requirement for her grandson was reasonable, genuine, and free from any oblique motive. The tenant cannot deny title after having paid rent. This Court finds no infirmity in the orders passed below,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: December 22, 2025