Holding

A suit filed by a co‑owner for eviction is maintainable without prior consent of other co‑owners, and the provision permitting eviction on bona fide requirement for non‑residential premises is constitutionally valid.

Summary

Manohar Lal Jain, a co-owner of a shop, filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming a bona fide personal requirement to run a wholesale Ayurvedic medicine business. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition for lack of proof of such requirement and for not obtaining consent of his four sisters, who were co-owners. The Appellate Authority reversed the decision, holding that the landlord had proved his bona fide requirement, and the High Court affirmed this view. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that a co-owner must obtain the consent of other co‑owners and that the provision allowing eviction on bona fide requirement for non‑residential premises is unconstitutional. The Court relied on earlier judgments (Harbilas Rai Bansal, Rakesh Vij, India Umbrella Manufacturing) and held that a suit filed by a co‑owner is maintainable without prior consent of other co‑owners unless they object, and that the provision for bona fide requirement in non‑residential premises is valid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the eviction order in place.

Issues considered

Whether a co‑owner can file an eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act without the consent of other co‑owners.
Whether the provision allowing eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for non‑residential premises is constitutionally valid.
Whether the landlord must demonstrate prior experience or qualification in the proposed business to establish bona fide requirement.

Legislation cited

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973s. 13, s. 4

Subjects

evictionbona fide requirementnon‑residential premisesco‑ownershipHaryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Actlandlord‑tenant lawconsent of co‑owners

Judgment

r
MOH!NDER PRASAD JAIN A
' v.
MANOHAR LAL JAIN

FEBRUARY 24, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAM, JJ.] B

,.\ Rent and Eviction:

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; Section I 3:
Eviction Petition-Non-residential premiseslshop-Bonajide requirement- c
Non-joinder of co-owners in eviction proceeding-Effect of-Held: A suit
filed by a co-owner maintainable in law-Petitioner-co-owner need not to
show that consent of other co-owners obtained theret~ince provisions of
law not allowing eviction on bonafide requirement of a non-residential premises
held ttJ be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the landlord could seek D
eviction of the premises in question on the ground of bonafide requirement-
---\ Besides, landlord/c~wner had proved his bonafide requirement to evict the
' tenant from the premises/shop in question, the findings offact arrived at by
the Court below need not be disturbed

Respondent, one of the co-owners, filed a petition under Section 13 E
of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for
eviction of the appellant-tenant from a shop/premises in question on the
ground of his bona fide personal requir~ment, i.e., for the purpose of
running wholesale business in· Ayurvedic medicines. The petition was
dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that the bona fide requirement· F
of the respondent in respect of the non-residential premises has not been
proved and moreover he had not been able to show that the consent of
other co-owners obtained favouring eviction of the premises. An appeal
preferred thereagainst was allowed by the Appellate Authority on a finding
that the petitioner had proved his bona fide requirement. The Revision
Petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by the High Court holding that G
the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the non-
. residential premises. Hence the present appeal.
;
~
Appellant-tenant.contended whereas a clear finding of fact was
arrived at by the Rent Controller that the respondent had failed to prove
513 H
t
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A his bona fide requirement in relation to the premhes in question in view
of the fact that other co-owners did not ghe their consent for starting a
business in the said shop, the Appellate Authority Jid not delve deep into
'
the.matter.
"'
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: I.I. This Court in the case of Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of
Punjab & Anr., (19961 1 SCC 1 held the e:dsting provision on bonafide
requirement of non-residential premises to be unconstitutional. Later,
upholding the ratio in the case of Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh
..
Sethi & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 504, this Court held that a landlord under the
c Act can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the
ground of bonafide requirement. 1516-D-EI

Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi & Ors., (20051 8 SCC 504
and Harbi/as Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab & Anr., (1996] 1 SCC 1, relied
D on.

Gian Devi Anandv. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 683, referred
to.
,..

1.2. A suit filed by a co-owner is maintainable in law. It is not '
E necessary for the co-owner to show before initiating the eviction '.
proceeding before the Rent Controller that he hllld taken consent of the
other co-owners. However, in the event, a co-owner objects thereto, the
same may be a relevant fact. In the instant case, nothing has been brought
on record to show that the co-owners of the respondent had objected to
eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent. (518-D-E)
F
India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. v. Bhagabandei Agarwal/a ;-
(Dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwal/a (Smt.) & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 178, relied
on.

1.3. The submission of the appellant to the effect that before initiating
G
the proceedings, respondent was required to show that he had experience
in running the business in Ayurvedic medicine is rejected. There is no law
which provides for such a pre-condition. It may be so where a licence is
....
,
required for running a business, a statute may prescribe certain r '
qualifications or pre-conditions without fulfilment whereof the landlord
H may not be able to start a business, but for running a wholesale business
r
\

MOHINDER PRASAD JAIN v. MANOHAR LAL JAIN [SINHA, J.) 515

in Ayurvedic medicine, no qualification is prescribed. Experience in the A
"'" business is not a pre-condition under any statute. Even no experience
therefor may be necessary. If the respondent has proved his bona fide
requirement to evict the appellant for his own purpose, this Court may
not, unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb the finding of fact
arrived at by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High Court.
1518-E-F-GJ
B

(:!VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1263 of2006.
A.,
,, From the Final Order dated 15.12.2004 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 6121 of 2004.
c
Dr. Vikas Vashishth, Kuldip Singh for the Appellant.

S.B. Sanyal, B.K. Satija for the Respondent. .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
--\ The father of the respondent herein was the owner of a shop in which
the appellant was inducted as a tenant on 1st April, 1972. The monthly rent
payable in relation to the said tenanted premises was Rs.700/-. The original
landlord, the father of the respondent having died on 5th March, 1979, the E
respondent along with his four sisters, became the owner of the said tenanted
premises. He was an employee of Hero Honda Motors Limited. He retired
from service having attained the ·age of superannuation. One year after his
retirement, he filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 ('the Act') for eviction of the F
appellant from the shop in question on the ground of his bona fide personal
~ . -\
requirement, i.e., for the purpose of running wholesale business in Ayurvedic
medicines. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding
that the bona fide requirement of the respondent in respect of the non-
residential premises has not been proved and moreover he had not been able
to show consent of his sisters in his favour in that behalf. An appeal preferred
G
thereagainst was allowed by the Appellate Authority on a finding that he
proved his bona fide requirement. In the revision petition filed before the
,..
High Court the appellant raised a contention that an application for eviction
' on bona fide requirement of a non-residential premises was not maintainable.
H
It is not in dispute that this Court as also the Punjab & Haryana High
.
-;

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A Court declared such a provision to be unconsttutional.
f
The High Court opined :

"Still further the learned counsel forther argued that eviction on
the basis of personal requirement is not available in respect ·of non-
B residential building. He has placed rdiance upon the Full Bench
judgment of Delhi High Court reported as Satyawati Sharma Versus
Union of India and another 2003 (I) R.L.R. 91.
;..
However, I am bound by the judgment of the D.B. of this Court
in State of Haryana v. Ved Parkash Gupta and Ors., ( 1999) I R.L.R.
c 689, wherein the provision of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1973 have been struck down and consequently, the
landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the non-
residential building. In view of the above judgment the reliance of
F.B.'s Judgment of Delhi High Court is not r.enable."
D We may notice that this Court in Harbilas Rat Bansal v. State of Punjab
& Anr., [ 1996] l SCC 1 held such a provision to be unconstitutional, whereas
in Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., [1985: 2 SCC 683 somewhat ~

different note was struck. The question recently fell for consideration before
a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh
E Sethi & Ors., reported in [2005] 8 SCC 504 wherein this Court upheld the
ratio laid down in Ha;bilas Rai Bansal (supra) stating :

"We allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the
High Court, declare the abovesaid provisions of the amendment as
constitutionally invalid and as a consequence restore the original
F provisions of the Act which were operating before coming into force
of the amendment. The net result is that a landlord under the Act can )> ...
seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground
that he requires it for his own use."

In view of the afore-mentioned decision of this Court, we are not called
G upon to answer the said question.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant faced with the
said decision, however, submitted that whereas a clear finding of fact was
arrived at by the Rent Controller that the respondent had failed to prove his
., .
H bona fide requirement in relation to the said premises in view of the fact that
his sisters did not give any consent for starting a business in the said shop,
,,
MOHINDER PRASAD JAIN v. MANOHAR LAL JAIN (SINHA, J.] 517
--(.
··t
the Appellate Authority did not delve deep into the matter. Our attention in A
1 this behalf has been drawn to the following findings of the Rent Controller:
'

"The third ground which has been raised by the counsel for the
respondent for nailing the ·pel<i'eioner' s case by itself has a force to
upset the petitioner's 'dase·because firstly in the case in hand the
petitioner has no where pleaded that he is the sole owner of the shop B
in dispute and secondly from the perusal of Ex.D6-the petition under
Section 4 of the Act for the Determination of the Fair Rent which was
,,.,_ filed by the petitioner alongwith his four sisters, this Court is satisfied
.
• that the shop in dispute is jointly owned by the petitioner alongwith
his four sisters. In para No.I of the aforesaid petition Ex.D6 this has
been categorically pleaded that the petitioners (i.e. the Manohar Lal
c
Jain-the petitioner and his four sisters) are owner of the shop.
Consequently the testimony of the petitioner that he is owner of _the
shop in dispute is not only beyond pleading but is also devoid of
truth. Since the petitioner is not the sole owner of the shop in dispute,
therefore, the petitioner's version that the shop in dispute is required D
solely by him for his personal use and occupation for running a
1 wholesale business of Ayurvedic Business appears to be a concocted
version because the petitioner has no where stated that his other four
sisters who are also the owner of the shop in dispute have consented
..,, him to use the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation."
E
The appellate Authority although should have dealt with the S':lid
question, had otherwise considered the matter from all aspects.

He had taken note of the fact that the landlord was one of the co-
owners and non-joinder of other co-owners in eviction petition is not fatal.
F
:.- -\ This question now stands concluded by a decision of this Court in India
Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. v. Bhagabandei Agarwal/a (Dead) by
Lrs. Savitri Agarwal/a (Smt.) & Ors., [2004] 3 SCC 178 wherein this Court
opined:

"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied G
that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one
/ of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property
-,. generally owned by the co-owners. (See Sri Ram Pasricha v.
Jagannath, [1976] 4 SCC 184 and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, [2002]
6 sec 16, sec para 25. This ;:irinciple is based on the doctrine of H
~
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.
.)

A agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant
does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the
r
other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken
unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to
eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement.
In the present case, the suit was filed by both the co-owners. One of
B the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit so as to
prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the
parties stand crystallised on the date of the suit and the entitlement
of the co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to >-
the date of institution of the suit; the only exception being when by •
c virtue of a subsequent event the entitlement of the body of co-owners
to eject the tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation
of law."·

A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is maintain:ible in law. It is not necessary
for the co-owner to show before initiating the eviction proceeding before the
D Rent Controller that he had taken option or c01:sent of the other co-owners.
However, in the event, a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a relevant
fact. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the ...
co-owners of the respondent had objected to eviction proceedings initiated by
the respondent herein. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
to the effect that before initiating the proceedings, the appellant was required
E to show that he had experience in running the business in Ayurvedic medicine,
has to be stated to be rejected. There is no law which provides for such a pre-
condition. It may be so where a licence is required for running a business,
a statute may prescribe certain qualifications or pre-conditions without
fulfilment whereof the landlord may not be ab le to start a business, but for
F running a wholesale business in Ayurvedic medicine, no qualification is
prescribed. Experience in the business is not a pre-condition under any statute. >- io.
Even no experience therefor may be necessary. If the respondent has proved
his bona fide requirement to evict the appellaD''. herein for his own purpose,
this Court may not, unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb the finding
of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High Court.
G
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. ~
"f
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.