Background of the Case

Landlord Vineet filed two eviction petitions on 23 December 2009, seeking eviction of tenants Vishal Sohal and Dinesh Kapoor from commercial shops located in the main market of Bhuntar, Kullu. Vineet argued that he was unemployed despite completing graduation and an ITI draftsman course, and had no stable income to support his widowed mother, wife, and family. He desired to start a ready-made garments and general merchandise business in the rented premises, which were ideally located in the main commercial hub.

The tenants resisted eviction by arguing that the landlord already operated a shop in Bhutti Colony, his mother was employed as a government teacher, and he therefore had no bona fide personal requirement. They also claimed long-standing tenancy rights and asserted that the petitions were not maintainable because, before the 2012 amendment, the Rent Act did not allow eviction from non-residential properties on the ground of bona fide requirement.

Findings of Lower Courts

The Rent Controller dismissed both petitions in 2013, holding that:

1. Section 14(3)(a)(i) (before amendment) permitted eviction for bona fide requirement only in residential buildings, not commercial units.

2. Since Vineet was already running a shop in a rented premises and his mother was earning, his need was not bona fide.

3. The Appellate Authority affirmed these findings in 2013 and 2014.

High Court’s Analysis

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur set aside the lower courts’ findings, holding that:

1. Post-amendment (16 March 2012), eviction can be sought from non-residential buildings for bona fide personal requirement. Although the petitions were filed earlier, the amendment applied to all cases decided after that date.

   • This view follows Supreme Court precedents (Harbilas Rai Bansal, Ashok Kumar, Hari Dass Sharma) affirming retrospective application of amendments intended to rectify constitutional defects.

2. Landlord’s bona fide requirement is fully established.

   • Vineet was unemployed and operating a shop in a rented, less advantageous area, whereas the disputed premises were owned by him and situated in a prime commercial locality.

   • Running a business in a rented shop does not defeat the landlord’s right to use his own premises.

   • A tenant cannot dictate which property the landlord should use or whether he should depend on his mother’s income.

3. Tenants had alternative commercial properties and even admitted owning buildings suitable for business, weakening their claim of hardship.

4. The Court emphasized long-standing legal principles:

   • The landlord is the best judge of his needs.

   • The Court cannot force a landlord to continue business in a less-suitable rented shop.

   • Bona fide need is determined based on genuine intention, not on the tenant’s assumptions.

Final Order

• Both Revision Petitions were allowed.

• Orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were set aside.

• Tenants were directed to vacate the premises by 31 December 2025.

• If they fail to vacate, they must pay ₹30,000/month as use and occupation charges from the date of filing of the eviction petitions until actual handover.