Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Eviction For Bonafide Requirement | Bonafide Requirement Must Be Seen On Date Of Initiation Of Eviction Process | Delay In Judicial Process Cannot Defeat Landlord’s Rights
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held that the death of the landlord’s son during the pendency of eviction proceedings did not affect the landlord’s bonafide requirement for the premises. The court dismissed the tenant’s revision petition against the eviction order and directed him to hand over vacant possession on or before 15.8.2025. It further allowed the landlord’s application for use and occupation charges, fixing arrears and future charges with stipulated rates and interest in case of default. The court disposed of the petition and related applications with these directives and findings.
The petitioner, a tenant, filed the civil revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 challenging the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the District Judge exercising powers as Appellate Authority under the Rent Act, which upheld the eviction order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla. The eviction petition was filed by the landlord on 05.05.2015 under Section 14 of the Rent Act seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises for personal use and occupation to settle his son, Vikram Bragta, in a new business and to augment his income. The landlord asserted that other floors of the same building were unsuitable for business as they were not on the road head and that he did not own or occupy any other commercial premises in urban areas.
The tenant contested the petition asserting that the eviction was sought only to compel him to enhance the rent. He stated that the premises was initially rented out at ₹9,000 per month, later enhanced to ₹14,000 under threat of eviction. He contended that the tenancy was in favour of M/s Webtech Computer Centre, and that he, Surinder Chauhan, was merely its representative, hence the eviction petition against him in his individual capacity was not maintainable. He further argued that the landlord or his son did not possess the required licence or experience to run the proposed wholesale and retail business of pesticides, fertilisers, chemicals, and allied agricultural products.
It was also stated that the landlord owned another building rented to a third party and failed to prove that the current premises was the only viable property for the proposed business. An additional ground was raised during the revision that the landlord’s son, for whose settlement the eviction was sought, had died on 13.09.2023, and hence the bonafide requirement no longer existed.
Evidence was led by both parties. The Rent Controller passed an eviction order after appreciating the material on record. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The revision petition before the High Court raised grounds including lack of maintainability due to non-impleadment of Webtech Computer Centre and the alleged extinguishment of bonafide requirement due to the death of the landlord’s son during proceedings.
Additionally, during the pendency of the revision petition, the landlord filed CMP No. 7698 of 2022 seeking use and occupation charges at ₹200 per square feet from 01.01.2020 till delivery of vacant possession. The tenant disputed this claim as inflated, citing that two floors rented to a school fetched only ₹48,000 per month, though admitted that this rent was fixed over 20 years ago. The landlord submitted a lease deed showing commercial premises in Sanjauli area rented at ₹2,40,000 per month for 84 square metres, indicating market rent at ₹265 per square feet.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur recorded that the death of Vikram Bragta during the pendency of the judicial proceedings would not affect the landlord’s bonafide requirement because the requirement had to be assessed with reference to the date when the eviction proceedings were initiated.
He noted that it was not only the landlord’s son who was to be settled, but after his death, the daughter-in-law and her child continued to have the need for the premises to settle the family by starting the business.
He further stated that even if the daughter-in-law was not interested in running the business, as evident from the averments made in paragraphs 18(a) and 19 of the eviction petition, the bonafide requirement was not based only on settling the son but also on augmenting the landlord’s income by putting the property to better use through the proposed business.
He recorded that the tenant’s plea that the landlord lacked a competent licence, experience, or capability to run the proposed business was not sustainable because it was for the concerned agencies to verify the requirements for running such a business.
He stated that licences or other formalities required for running the business could be obtained by the landlord after securing eviction from the premises, especially since there was no certainty about the time taken for eviction proceedings to conclude.
He observed that the eviction petition was filed against Surinder Chauhan with a specific submission in paragraph 5 that the premises was in his occupation and he was running the Computer Centre under the name and style of Webtech Computer Centre. In paragraph 3(b) of the petition, it was stated that Surinder Chauhan was the tenant, and in reply to paragraph 5, it was admitted that he was running the Computer Centre under that name and style.
He recorded that even if the tenancy was initially created in favour of Capital Computer, as shown in the agreement dated 5.12.2002 placed on record as Ext.PW1/A, the agreement indicated that the expressions landlord and tenant included their respective heirs and successors-in-interest.
Therefore, the change in the name and style of business by Surinder Chauhan did not alter the status of the party or impact the proceedings.
He stated that he had examined the record as well as the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
He found that the order of the Rent Controller was in accordance with settled law and that the Appellate Authority had rightly appreciated the material on record and dismissed the tenant’s appeal after considering various pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
The court directed that the revision petition along with CMP No. 11594 of 2024 was dismissed, with a direction to the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises on or before 15.8.2025, and allowed the application CMP No. 7698 of 2022 filed by the landlord in those terms.
It further directed the tenant to deposit arrears of use and occupation charges payable till 31.7.2025 on or before 18th August, 2025, failing which he would also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on the arrears from the date of accrual till final payment.
The court stated that future use and occupation charges would be paid by the tenant until handing over vacant possession, on or before the 7th of every month for which use and occupation charges were due, and in case of default in such payment, the tenant would also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of accrual till final payment.
It recorded that if the tenant handed over vacant possession on or before 15.8.2025, he would be liable to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of ₹35,000 per month.
It also stated that if possession was not handed over by 31.12.2025, use and occupation charges would be ₹2,00,000 per month for the next one year and thereafter ₹3,00,000 per month for the following year, with similar increases for every subsequent year.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocate in line
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate
Case Title: Surinder Chauhan v. Jai Lal Bragra
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:20632
Case Number: Civil Revision No.74 of 2022
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
