The civil process by which a landlord can legally remove a tenant from their leased property is known as eviction. When a tenant fails to pay rent, the rental agreement's provisions are violated, or other legal grounds exist, the tenant may be evicted.
These cases discuss whether an order of eviction of a tenant is valid or not, and by analyzing the circumstances and factors involved in each case, the courts either uphold or strike down such orders.
Is the tenant eligible to dictate how much space is adequate for the landlord for their proposed business venture?
Is a suit for eviction maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal if the tenant disputes that the suit property is not a wakf property?
Can an NRI landlord be asked to prove their title before getting their tenant evicted on stipulated grounds?
The Supreme Court stated in upholding an eviction decision in favor of an NRI landlord that a tenant cannot dictate how much room is necessary for a projected business venture or indicate that the available space with the landlord will be acceptable.
A claim for eviction can be brought before a Wakf Tribunal if the tenant disputes that the property is not a wakf, according to the Supreme Court. This is because the Wakf Tribunal is the only one who can decide whether the property belongs to wakf.
The Supreme Court ruled that non-residential Indians, like any other landlord, cannot be required to show their ownership before evicting their tenants on any of the grounds set forth in the eviction notice.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh vs Sudarshan Kumar on 27 January, 2021
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 231-232 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10793-10794 OF 2020)
BALWANT SINGH @ BANT SINGH & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUDARSHAN KUMAR & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The landlords/appellants challenge the judgment dated 6.3.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereunder the respondents/tenants were granted leave to contest the eviction proceedings, overturning the decision of the Rent Controller, Khanna, whereby leave to contest was refused to the tenants.
3. The appellants are the owners of the premises and the two shops therein for which, the eviction proceedings were initiated against the tenants. The subject shops on the ground floor of the building were situated in the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by urban Charanjeet kaur Date: 2021.01.29 17:22:08 IST area of Khanna. The appellants are Non-Resident Reason:
Indians (NRI) within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). They sought immediate recovery of possession of the rented premises by invoking the provisions of Section 13B read with Section 18A of the Act. The landlord moved the Rent Controller claiming that the appellant No. 1 desires to start the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of furniture and for the proposed business, the property already in possession of the landlord, is insufficient. It was also indicated that after shops in question are vacated, the building will be renovated as per the requirement of the proposed business.
4. On receipt of notice, the two tenants filed identical application seeking leave to contest, as provided under Section 18A(5) of the Act. The tenants alleged that the appellants have failed to disclose their past litigation with M/s Sudarshan Interior Decorators qua Rent Application No. 6/2005 and also the other litigation with Diwan Chand qua Rent Application No. 32/2005. As the landlord have secured possession of the two shops through those litigations, it was projected that the landlords are in occupation of four shops adjoining each other and in that available space, the furniture business can be conveniently conducted.
5. In their reply to the pleadings of the tenants, the appellants contended that there is no concealment of necessary facts in the eviction petitions, inasmuch as the concerned proceedings were decided much prior to the institution of the present proceedings under Section 13B of the Act. It was further stated that the shops in possession of the landlords were disclosed but the space is insufficient for the proposed business. Therefore, the shop premises in occupation of the present tenants are needed to be secured.
6. The Rent Controller considered the rival submissions and noted that the three necessary ingredients for initiating proceedings under Section 13B of the Act were satisfied by the appellants. Firstly the landlord is NRI, secondly, the landlord has returned to India; and thirdly, the landlord has been the owner of the property for five years. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also found between the contesting parties. It was further noticed that the previous eviction proceedings against M/s. Sudarshan Interior Decorators and against Diwan Chand was filed under Section 13 and not under Section 13B of the Act and since they were decided much earlier, non-disclosure of those proceedings will not affect the merit of the present proceedings, under Section 13B of the Act. The Rent Controller rejected the objection of the tenants that a portion of the premises would be sufficient for the proposed business.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller refusing leave to contest, the tenants filed separate Revision Petitions before the High Court to challenge the orders of the Rent Controller. The High Court in the impugned judgment had focused on the fact that the landlord had earlier recovered possession of two adjoining shops through proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act and those shops are lying vacant. The Court also noted that the first floor of the tenanted premises is let out to a bank for which no eviction petition was filed. It was accordingly held that leave to contest should be granted to the tenants. The order passed by the Rent Controller was then set aside and further proceeding was directed before the Rent Controller with grant of leave to contest to the tenants.
8. Assailing the legality of the judgment of the High Court, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel contends that when there is no dispute that the appellants are covered within the meaning of “Non- Resident Indian” under Section 2(dd) and required the premises (under their ownership for over five years) for business needs, the tenant cannot seek leave to contest, inasmuch as, the right to recover immediate possession is granted to NRI landlords under the special mechanism of Section 13B and Section 18A of the Act. Mr. Jain refers to the appended site map of the vacant shops to show that it is for the landlord to assess his need and space for the proposed business and the tenants cannot contest eviction on their understanding of what would be adequate for the appellant’s business. Since the vacant possession of the other two shops is clearly indicated in the proceedings initiated before the Rent Controller, it is argued that there is no concealment and the High Court should not have allowed the Revision in favour of the tenants primarily on the ground of the said two vacant shops.
9. Per contra Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Senior Counsel refers to the site map (Annexure R-10), to argue that the landlord has sufficient space available in their possession for the proposed furniture business and therefore, the bona fide need of the landlord is rightly questioned by the tenants. The non-disclosure of the two earlier eviction proceedings is also highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel to contend that the right to contest was rightly ordered in favour of the tenants in the present eviction proceedings. It is next projected that appellant No. 1 holds Canadian citizenship and considering his age, the proposed business venture should not be accepted as a bona fide need, of the landlords.
10. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. The tenants do not challenge the NRI status of the landlord but they contend that the space available with the landlord would be adequate for the proposed furniture business and there is no need to seek eviction of the respondents, from their respective shops.
11. On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the earlier eviction proceeding, the concerned vacant shops under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed, but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space under their possession is insufficient for the proposed furniture business. On the age aspect, it is seen that the respondents are also senior citizens but that has not affected their desire to continue their business in the tenanted premises. Therefore, age cannot be factored against the landlords in their proposed business.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The cases discuss rental and property laws and how they govern the eviction of a tenant. In the abovementioned cases, the Supreme Court has upheld eviction orders along with elaborating upon whether a particular Tribunal is entitled to try cases related to the eviction of a tenant under various circumstances.
Furthermore, the cases discuss East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and the Wakf Act, 1995.
A dispute related to the eviction of a tenant is a time-consuming process in and of itself, let alone when the eviction is contested. In such a scenario, the case’s difficulty is amplified even more, and the odds of winning without the assistance of a legal expert are little to none. This is why, when dealing with a case as crucial as land purchase, it is critical to have an experienced tenancy lawyer on your side. A property lawyer with years of expertise handling similar matters can devise the best strategy for you.
88+ Lawyers are online 
