P&H HC Upholds Tenant’s Eviction From Shed Needed For Landlord’s Business, Finds Open Yard Was Not Proven Part Of Same Tenancy

The landlord sought eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (“1973 Act”) from a room/shed at Industrial Plot No. 323, Panchkula, alleging bona fide personal need and initially non-payment of rent.

The tenant disputed the bona fides of the need, alleged concealment of the landlord’s interest in another industrial shed, and contended that the eviction petition sought partial eviction from a single tenancy that also included an adjoining open area.

The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement; the landlord had abandoned the non-payment ground. The Appellate Authority affirmed the eviction order and dismissed the parties’ appeals and cross-objections.

The tenant challenged both orders in revision under Section 15(6) of the 1973 Act.

Section 15(6) of the 1973 Act confers revisional, not appellate, jurisdiction: the High Court may examine whether the order is legal and proper, but may not reappraise evidence merely to reach a different factual conclusion; interference is warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or affected by an error of law (*Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh*; *Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh*).

A single, indivisible tenancy cannot be split for partial eviction absent statutory authority, but separately created tenancies over distinct portions do not constitute partial eviction (*Habibunnisa Begum v. G. Doraikannu Chettiar*).

Bona fide need is ordinarily assessed as at the date of the eviction petition; a subsequent event affects the claim only if it materially extinguishes or undermines the need (*Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte*).

The landlord is generally the best judge of which premises suit the landlord’s need, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord’s choice of premises (*Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan*).

Abandoning a claim for eviction on the ground of non-payment does not extinguish rent due for the period of occupation; refund is limited to amounts proved to have been paid in excess.

The tenant did not prove that the open area formed part of the tenancy created by the 2002 rent agreement: no subsequent rent note or other sufficient evidence established that the original tenancy had been enlarged. The order relied on by the tenant concerning possession of the open area had been set aside, and, even considered on its own terms, did not establish a single tenancy covering both portions; the partial-eviction objection therefore failed.

The landlord’s later closure of his Mohali business and his age did not, in the circumstances, negate the need pleaded at the time of filing. Nor did obtaining possession of other portions of the plot disprove the need, as those steps were consistent with establishing the business at the Panchkula premises; the tenant showed no material rendering the need implausible.

Shed No. 312 belonged to the landlord’s wife, and the tenant did not establish that it was available to the landlord or that its non-disclosure materially affected the bona fide-need inquiry.

Finally, the lower courts had already ordered refund, with interest, for periods in which duplicate payment was proved; the tenant did not establish entitlement to any further refund.

It dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the Rent Controller’s eviction order and the Appellate Authority’s judgment; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.