Bonafide Requirement Must Be Seen On Date Of Initiation Of Eviction Process, Not During Pendency Of Proceedings: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the death of a landlord's son during the pendency of eviction proceedings does not affect the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction, as the date for assessing such requirement is the date of filing the eviction petition and not during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Court observed that eviction proceedings take time, and the landlord should not suffer because of this. A landlord remains entitled to possession to put their property to better use or settle their family, irrespective of subsequent events, the court said.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “Death of landlord's son during pendency of judicial proceedings shall not have any impact on the bonafide requirement of landlord for the reason that firstly bonafide requirement has to be seen with reference to the date of initiation of eviction proceedings”

Background Facts:

On May 5, 2015, the landlord, Jai Lal Bragta, filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, seeking eviction of the tenant from his premises. He stated the premises were required for his personal use to establish a business to settle his son Vikram Bragta, and to augment his income by putting the property to better use.

He asserted that he did not have any other non-residential premises in an urban area, nor had he vacated any such commercial premises shop within five years prior to the filing of the petition.

The rent controller allowed the eviction petition, and this order was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the tenant filed a civil revision before the High Court.

Contentions:

The tenant submitted that the son of the landlord, for whose settlement the eviction petition was filed, had expired during the pendency of the present petition. Therefore, the eviction order was sought to be set aside as the ground for the bona fide requirement no longer exists.

The tenant also contended that the landlord or his son did not have any licence/registration as well as sufficient experience to run the business of pesticides, fertilisers, chemicals and allied agricultural products.

Findings:

In Gaya Prasad v/s Pradeep Srivastava, 2001, the Supreme Court held that “crucial date for deciding as to the Bonafides of requirements of landlord is the date of his application for eviction with observation that where landlord had instituted eviction proceedings for bonafide requirements of his son who wanted to start a clinic, but during continuation of litigation for a long period, son joined the provincial medical services and posted at different places, the said subsequent event of joining service by son was not taken into consideration on the ground that crucial date was date of filing of eviction petition”.

In D.Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundrarajan, 2019, the Supreme Court held that “landlord should not be penalized for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial date for deciding the Bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of application for eviction”.

Therefore, the High Court held that the death of the landlord's son during the pendency of the case did not affect the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The Court noted that the bona fide requirement has to be seen with reference to the date of initiation of eviction proceedings. Also, it was held that it was not only the son of the landlord who had to be settled, but even after his death, his daughter-in-law, along with her child, were in need of premises for starting business.

Lastly, even if it is considered that the daughter-in-law was not interested in running the business, the court noted that the bona fide requirement as laid down by the landlord was not based only for settling his son but also for the augmentation of income by putting the property to better use for business purposes.

The Court also rejected the tenant's contention that the landlord did not have a valid license and enough experience to run the business. It held that it is the duty of the concerned Agencies to verify the requirements for running the business proposed by the landlord. Further, such a licence or other formalities for running the business can be completed by the landlord after the eviction of the tenant from the premises.

It held that eviction proceedings take time, like in this case, the petition was filed in 2015, and it is the year 2025, and the landlord still has not been able to obtain possession of the premises.

Thus, the Court upheld the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

Case Name: Surinder Chauhan v/s Jai Lal Bragra

Case No.: Civil Revision No. 74 of 2022

Date of Decision: 01.07.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vedhant Ranta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order