Rent eviction
Satish Sharma
(Querist) 12 April 2013
This query is : Resolved
DEAR SIR,
WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS GROUNDS FOR TENANT EVICTION...
CAN TENANT BE EVICTED FROM COMMERCIAL PREMISES ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL BONAFIDE NECESSITY????
THANKS & WITH REGRDS,
SATISH
Advocate M.Bhadra
(Expert) 12 April 2013
Now it is very important to understand the grounds on which one can remove the tenant and his/her possessions from the rental property legally. The various grounds on which the statute enables eviction are as follows but you should consult your local authority to make sure about the law prevailing in your city or panchayat:
Stipulated rent not paid by the tenant willingly for more than 15 days after the rent fell due.
If the tenant has, allowed some other person to occupy the whole or the part of the premises without the consent of the landlord.
If the use of the property is mentioned in the lease deed and the tenant has put the building premises into some use other than mentioned in the deed.
If the tenant has materially damaged the building or has done an act resulted in depreciating the value or utility of the building.
If the building is used for some illegal or immoral purposes by the tenant.
If the tenant has created a nuisance and the landlord has to face objections against his from the other tenants in the buildings or neighbors.
If the tenant has left the building unoccupied and unattended for more than five years, somehow this rule is not favorable in hill stations due to the winter migration.
If the tenant denies the landlord’s title to the building, it is in the low that if the tenant has commenced the tenancy under a particular person, he can’t disown the landlord by declaring the building’s tile under the name of some other person.
If the building is required by the landlord or any other member of his family for residential or non-residential purpose.
In case the building is required by the landlord for the repairs which cannot be carried out without vacating the building. It is required to note down that one the repair works are finished that the tenant is entitled to re-enter the premises.
In case the landlord is planning to demolish the building immediately and putting up a new building.
There are a few other grounds of eviction mentioned in the statute, but the above mentioned are the one which cannot be resisted by the tenant against the eviction. Always remember, keep away from taking any “self-help” eviction measures because a tenant can file a criminal case against the land lord. Also Court proceedings of any type should be avoided at all times as eviction cases can last up to 10 or even 20 years.
Supreme court upholds needy landlord’s right to evict tenant
Upholding a needy landlord’s right to evict a tenant, the Supreme Court has set aside an Uttarakhand High Court order which said that “greater comparative hardship” would be caused to a tenant, as compared to his landlord, if a decree of eviction was passed against him.
The apex bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.P. Desai, in a recent judgment, described as erroneous the Sep 12, 2005 verdict of the high court.
The judges said: “It is well settled (that) the landlord’s requirements”, seeking eviction of a tenant, “need not be a dire necessity”.
“In our opinion, the hardship the appellant (owner of the rented premises) would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be greater than the hardship the respondent (tenant) would suffer by having to move out to another place,” said the apex court.
Holding that the circumstances of comparative hardship could not be the sole determinative factor in deciding tenancy disputes, the apex court said: “We are mindful of the fact that whenever a tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent.”
If comparative hardships of the landlord and the tenant were the right approach in deciding tenancy disputes, then “an affluent landlord can never get possession of his premises even if he proves all the bona fide requirements”.
A tenant’s hardship could be mitigated by granting him a longer period to move out of the premises so that he can make alternative arrangements.
he high court while holding that the requirements of the premises owner Mohammad Ayub were bona fide, yet it granted him a partial relief holding that tenant Mukesh Chand would suffer a “greater comparative hardship” if he was evicted.
Ayub purchased the house in question, Chand was already in tenancy of the earlier owner. Chand was occupying two shops facing the road and two rooms in the rear at a monthly rent of Rs.35.
Over the years Ayub’s family grew and consequently requirements for more space was felt by him. For residential purposes and needs of livelihood, he asked Chand to vacate the premises.
While holding that the requirements of Ayub were bona fide, the high court gave just one room to Ayub and allowed Chand to continue occupying the other three.
“The court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or imagine that he could profitably do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start,” the judgment said adding, that “it was for the landlord to which business he wants to do”.
It was “not uncommon for a Muslim family to do the business of non-vegetarian food”, the court said that the district court was wrong in holding as “pretence” Ayub’s plea that his sons wanted to start the general merchant business because they were already dealing in eggs.
The apex court also noted that Chand did not give any satisfactory answer to the court’s query whether he made any “genuine efforts to find an alternative accommodation during the pendency of litigation”.
“The high court has not given any reason why only the partial relief was being granted to the appellant (Ayub),” said the apex court.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 12 April 2013
Well personal need of Landlord shall always
be a ground of eviction.
Which rent control Act applies in your location?
Is tenant protected under that act?
are the questions you should consult and get drafted the eviction petition after service of notice of eviction,for all this you do need help of a local lawyer.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 12 April 2013
Reasonable requirement as it is called the WB RENT Act or ' bona fide requirement' as it is called in other rent Act is always the master stroke available to the landlord.
You can pick and choose any of your tenants to claim his premises to use for your livelihood or residence.
Go ahead.
Ankit Jain
(Expert) 12 April 2013
tell about yout location as rent control is governed by local Laws
Satish Sharma
(Querist) 13 April 2013
Dear Mr. Prabhakar & Mr Ankit Jain,
The location is Palwal ,Haryana covered under Haryana Rent control Act.
Kindly suggest.......
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 13 April 2013
It is 'THE HARYANA URBAN (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION), ACT, 1973' that is applicable
to your case.This Act governs all buildings on the completion of 10 years of the construction.
The Eviction grounds are available through section 13 of the Act:
Those grounds are:
1.default or 15 days delay in payment of rent but it stands condoned if payment is deposited with interest @8% plus cost on the very first day after service of notice of eviction case.
2.subletting and conversion of user of building other than for which it was let,
for acts committed to devalue the building.
3.For nuisance committed to other occupants
of same building or to other neighbourhood
buildings.
4.when tenant has ceased to occupy for 4 months without reasonable cause(hill station buildings exempted).
5.s.13(3A)deals with eviction of tenant based on bona fide need available with respect to non residential building to armed force personnel retirees and those who were minors at the time ownership and landlordship devolved upon them can only apply for eviction on the ground of bonafide need.
Satish Sharma
(Querist) 13 April 2013
Dear Mr. Ankit Jain,
Awaiting your reply.....
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 13 April 2013
no more to add.
B K Raghavendra Rao
(Expert) 13 April 2013
Owner can seek eviction of tenant on sole simple reason 'required for my personal use'. Owner has every right to use his own pemises for his activities. Only requirement is that provisions of Transfer of Property Act need to be complied with.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 13 April 2013
B K Raghavendra Rao ji!
If the building is a decade old liberty of landlord under TPA goes with application of
THE HARYANA URBAN (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION), ACT, 1973 where eviction can take place only on grounds stated in section 13 of that Act,author has disclosed the location of building to be in Haryana,you may please take note of.
Satish Sharma
(Querist) 14 April 2013
Mr. Prahakar ji,
It means that only armed force personnel retirees and those who were minors at the time ownership and landlordship devolved upon them can only apply for eviction on the ground of bonafide need.
The person who is unemployed cannot evict tenant if he wants to start own business as per haryana rent control act.Even if landlord is the only breadwinner for his family & unemployed.
Thanks.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 14 April 2013
I am from U.P.
The text i found on net says so.How old it was i do not know.?But if the provision i read for you to be considered i confirm my opinion unless some amendment is found subsequently for which i can not guarantee.
Mr. Makkad is from haryana who can state better.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 14 April 2013
The text i read was found by me on following site:
http://www.taxandlawdirectory.com/Content_folder/HUA73.pdf
It can not be copied and pasted.
Read it's section 13(3A)which is applicable to a non residential building.
Section 13 is the only provision i found dealing with eviction cases.
Satish Sharma
(Querist) 14 April 2013
Dear Mr. Makkad,
As Prabhakar Sir told that u r fm haryana and state Haryana Rent control act in a better manner.
kindly explain???
Ankit Jain
(Expert) 15 April 2013
agreed with Prabhalar Singh Ji
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 April 2013
I wish Mr. Makkad addresses this query.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 April 2013
REpeat!
I wish Mr. Makkad addresses this query.
Satish Sharma
(Querist) 16 March 2014
Dear Mr. makkad,
Awaiting your reply.
Thanks.
Satish
