Mother’s Pension Not Sustainable Livelihood: HP High Court Allows Eviction, Upholds Landlord’s Right To Use Own Commercial Premises
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held that a landlord cannot be required to keep operating his business from a rented shop when his own commercial premises are available and his need is established as genuine. The case concerned eviction proceedings in which the landlord sought possession of two non-residential premises to start his business. The Court observed that the pension received by the landlord’s mother could not be treated as a stable or lasting means of livelihood and noted that the landlord’s reliance on a rented shop elsewhere itself demonstrated a bona fide requirement to regain his property for conducting his business. The Court ultimately directed the tenants to vacate the premises.
The matter concerns two revision petitions arising from separate eviction proceedings filed by the landlord seeking eviction of two tenants from non-residential premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. Both petitions were filed on 23 December 2009 before the Rent Controller, Kullu. The landlord stated that after completing his graduation in 2004 and a draftsman course in 2005, he remained unemployed and intended to start a readymade garment and manyari business in the shops rented to the tenants. He asserted that the premises were situated in the main bazaar of Bhuntar and were the only shops owned by him.
The tenants contested the petitions separately. One tenant asserted that he was inducted in 2006, had obtained a drug licence in 2007, and had availed bank loans for business operations. He contended that the landlord already ran a shop in Bhutti Colony and owned two shops in the market. The other tenant claimed that he was inducted initially in 1987 by the landlord’s father, later continued by the grandmother, and that he paid rent regularly. He stated that the landlord had a running business, his mother was a government teacher, and his wife was employed, asserting absence of bonafide need.
Both sides produced affidavits, rent agreements, receipts, licences, utility bills, site plans and other documentary evidence. The Rent Controller dismissed both petitions on the ground that eviction on the basis of bonafide requirement applied only to residential buildings and that the landlord’s claim of need was not established. The Appellate Authority affirmed the dismissal. The landlord thereafter filed the present revision petitions.
The Court recorded that “prior to 16.03.2012, under Rent Act, there was no provision for seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement from non-residential premises. However, after amendment... eviction petition is maintainable.” It observed that although the petitions were filed earlier, they were decided after the amendment, and held, “it can conveniently be held that the eviction petition filed by the landlord even prior to the amendment… was maintainable.”
Evaluating the landlord’s circumstances, the Court stated that evidence showed he “could not get employment” despite educational qualifications, and that he had attempted to earn a livelihood by running a rented Karyana shop in Bhutti Colony. The Court noted the tenants’ admissions that the petitioner intended to start a manyari shop and that he was running a shop in premises belonging to someone else, whereas the demised premises were located in NAC Bhuntar.
Regarding the landlord’s economic condition, the Court recorded that although the petitioner’s mother had been a teacher, “she is stated to have retired and getting pension but it cannot be a ground to deprive the landlord to get the premises vacated… mother is not going to support forever.” The Court observed that the landlord “cannot bank upon the salary or pension of his mother, which is not a permanent source of livelihood for him.”
The lower courts’ rejection of bonafide requirement was found unjustified. The Court stated, “running a shop in tenanted premises cannot be used to dispel the claim of landlord… which have higher potential of business.” It further held that the landlord was not making a hypothetical claim but had genuinely attempted to run a business and required the premises for livelihood.
The Court also noted admissions by the tenants that they possessed their own buildings in commercially viable areas, stating that their “bonafide requirement to continue the possession of rented premises is also under cloud.” The Court held that the findings of the authorities below “suffer from perversity” and that the landlord’s bonafide requirement stood established.
The Court stated that “both petitions are allowed” and that the “impugned order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 05 of 2009 and affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment/order dated 19.10.2013 passed in Rent Appeal No. 22 of 2013; and order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 06 of 2009 and affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment/order dated 25.2.2014 passed in Rent Appeal No. 94 of 2013, are set aside.”
“Respondents in both petitions are directed to vacate the premises in reference on or before 31st December, 2025. In case the premises are not vacated by tenants on or before 31st December, 2025, then apart from facing other consequences the tenants shall also be liable to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.30000/- each per month from the date of filing of eviction petitions till vacation.”
“Petitions are disposed of accordingly, including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Srishti Negi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with M/s Parar Dhaulta and Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocates; Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Vineet v. Vishal Sohal & Vineet v. Dinesh Kapoor
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:38093
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 4083 of 2013 with Civil Revision No. 32 of 2014
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
