M/S A.R. Ventures And Another vs. M/S Roop Square PVT LTD And Another

Facts

The petitioners, M/s A.R. Ventures, were tenants under two agreements dated December 1, 2016, for the top and fourth floors of properties owned by M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. and others. The rent was agreed at Rs. 1 lakh per month for the top floor and Rs. 4 lakhs per month for the fourth floor, with a 5% annual increase and a nine-year tenancy. The petitioner allegedly defaulted on rent payments after five months and also failed to pay electricity charges and government taxes, forcing the landlord to pay GST and other charges. The landlord filed eviction petitions under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, for non-payment of rent and personal requirement. The Rent Authority dismissed the petitioner's application for rejection of the eviction petitions and framed issues. The Appellate Authority dismissed the tenant's appeals and allowed the landlord's appeals, remanding the matter to the Rent Authority to allow the tenant to pay arrears, failing which eviction would be ordered. The tenant has not paid rent during the entire litigation period, claiming bankruptcy.

Held

The Court held that the eviction petitions were maintainable. Regarding the notice requirement under Section 20(2), the Court found that the Rent Authority and Appellate Authority had rightly dismissed the petitioner's application for rejection of the eviction petitions. The Court clarified that the landlord's right to seek eviction on the ground of personal requirement under Section 20(2)(q) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, is not qualified by the need to prove 'bona fide necessity'. The Act only requires the landlord not to have any other reasonably suitable accommodation. The suitability of the property for the landlord's requirements is primarily the landlord's concern, not the tenant's or the Court's, unless the suitability claimed is not reasonable. The Court emphasized that the word 'reasonably' does not mean 'bona-fide' or 'just' or 'fair', but refers to a logical deduction of propriety. The Court found the petitioner's claim of bankruptcy and non-payment of rent during the entire litigation period to be a blatant misuse of the court process. Consequently, all revision petitions were dismissed with costs, and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted immediately. The landlord was held entitled to arrears of rent with 15% per annum interest from the date of filing of the petitions until possession is handed over, and arrears determined by the Lower Appellate Authority for the period prior to filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the eviction petitions filed by the respondent/landlord were maintainable, given the petitioner/tenant's contention that the notice provided by the landlord did not comply with the prescribed format under Section 20(2) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, making it a mandatory condition for maintaining the petition. 2. Whether the rent agreements, being unregistered, were inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, and thus lacked legal value, as argued by the petitioner based on Section 4 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. 3. Whether the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground of personal requirement under Section 20(2)(q) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, required proof of bona fide necessity, as contended by the petitioner, or if the landlord's suitability and reasonableness of requirement were the sole considerations, as argued by the respondent. Petitioner's arguments: The notice under Section 20(2) was mandatory and not in the prescribed format, rendering the eviction petitions non-maintainable. Unregistered rent agreements are inadmissible and have no legal value. The landlord's personal requirement must be bona fide. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondent on the maintainability of the eviction petitions or the admissibility of the rent agreements. However, the judgment discusses the landlord's right to seek eviction based on personal requirement under Section 20(2)(q) and the irrelevance of bona fide necessity.