Tenant eviction: After more than 10 years fight a landlord wins eviction case on ground of rebuilding of house property; Know how
How did this case start?
August 11, 2008: Landlord filed a rent petition for eviction oftenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of rebuilding/re-construction after demolition of existing building which was not possible without the premises being vacated.
Landlord filed a rent petition for eviction oftenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of rebuilding/re-construction after demolition of existing building which was not possible without the premises being vacated. June 30, 2011: The said petition was allowed by a court order which recognised the need of the landlord as a bona fide need. However, the court ordered that eviction of the tenant from the premises will be carried out only on production of duly sanctioned plan by the landlord before the executing court.
The said petition was allowed by a court order which recognised the need of the landlord as a bona fide need. However, the court ordered that eviction of the tenant from the premises will be carried out only on production of duly sanctioned plan by the landlord before the executing court. July 3, 2012: Tenant filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority said that until the case's trial is over, the tenant should deposit the rental amount with the rent controller which will be disturbed to the landlord subsequent to the outcome of the trial.
Tenant filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority said that until the case's trial is over, the tenant should deposit the rental amount with the rent controller which will be disturbed to the landlord subsequent to the outcome of the trial. October 4, 2012: The tenant filed a revision petition. The revised petition was dismissed with clarification that it shall be open to the tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with proviso to clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Rent Act read in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma's case and judgment of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006.
The tenant filed a revision petition. The revised petition was dismissed with clarification that it shall be open to the tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with proviso to clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Rent Act read in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma's case and judgment of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006. July 8, 2013: The tenant's special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The tenant's special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. June 30, 2014: The tenant again filed an application before the rent controller and this time also the case was dismissed.
What does Section 14(3)(c) of the Rent Act mean?
What did the Himachal Pradesh High Court say about tenant's rights in re-built properties?
So far right of re-induction or to re-entry shall be subject to and have adherence to all provisions of law applicable and prevailing at relevant point of time for such re-entry including determination of fair rent or rent mutually agreed between the parties as well as proposed user and utilization of the property by the landlords.
The right to re-entry of the tenant has been granted in the Act itself. However, such right definitely is not to be an absolute right, as the Courts have to determine the same keeping in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case including the purpose for which reconstruction/rebuilding of the premises has been proposed and permitted, and also keeping in view the bona fide requirement of the landlord.
In case premises after rebuilding/reconstruction is to be rented, then definitely tenants shall have right to re-entry/re-induction in the premises, in accordance with law, as recorded herein.
For example, if premises is ordered to be vacated for bona fide requirement of the owner to utilize the premises in better way by converting the residential building into a commercial complex, in such eventuality, tenant living in residential premises may not claim re-entry or re-induction in the newly constructed commercial complex for residential accommodation.
Similarly, there may be a case where the landlord intends to expand his business and shall have a requirement of more space for commercial activity by rebuilding/ reconstructing the premises. In such eventuality also, it may not be justified to impose a tenant upon him causing curtailment of his plan of extension of his business.
In a given case, a building may be proposed to be reconstructed or rebuilt for own residential purpose with no proposal to let it out. In such eventuality, a tenant cannot be thrusted upon the owner of the premises by way of re-induction or re-entry in a house particularly designed and constructed in a manner that there is no scope for letting out a portion thereof as existence of any other family in such premises may cause interference in privacy.
Such re-entry/re-induction shall amount to depriving a person from his right of full enjoyment of his property for no fault on his part, but for the only reason that he or his predecessor had provided rented accommodation to someone in the past, as per circumstances prevailing at that time.'
Himachal Pradesh High Court final judgement
Proviso on the basis of which tenant is claiming direction for construction of building within a time frame and right of re-entry, provides therein re-entry/reinduction on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant in the premises in re-built building.
Therefore, for invoking this proviso, there must be a rebuilt building and new terms of tenancy finalised on the basis of mutual agreement between landlord and tenant.
In present case, there is nothing on record that premises in question has been rebuilt and landlord has decided to utilize by renting out the same on certain new terms or any mutual agreement between landlord and tenant has been arrived at on the basis of new terms of tenancy or any other person have been inducted by landlord as tenant, avoiding the previous tenant.
Right to re-entry has been given to bonafide tenants, who have no other option to have shelter, except the building in reference proposed to be re-built, but not a person who has no business or no cause to continue the tenancy, particularly after retirement when he has started residing in a different township/village.
It is further noticeable that Supreme Court has directed to handover the possession by tenant to the landlord on or before 30.6.2014, whereas application seeking direction to the landlord was preferred prior to vacating the premises, which was and is not maintainable because before vacation of the premises by tenant, there was no question of initiating/commencing re-building/re-construction by the landlord.
What precedent does this judgement set for tenants and landlords?
Since 2008, a landlord had been battling in various courts to evict a tenan t and finally he won the eviction case on April 22, 2025 when the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the tenant 's appeal and ordered him to vacate the landlord's property.The High Court ruled in favour of the landlord by saying that a tenant's right to re-enter a landlord's property (post rebuilding/reconstruction) is not absolute and is based on mutual agreement and the purpose of reconstruction of the building.To tell you in a brief about this case, it started when the landlord wanted to renovate his house by re-building it and wanted his tenant to move out. But the tenant was not ready to move out of the house and thus in 2008, the landlord filed an eviction suit.During the hearing of the eviction suit, the landlord proved his bona fide need for rebuilding/re-construction of the property and won the case. But the tenant did not give up and filed an appeal in the High Court and even a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India. Both the High Court and Supreme Court of India rejected the tenant's appeal at that time. Still, the tenant persisted and filed yet another appeal, this time with the rent controller and then once more with the High Court.After hearing this case again, the High Court said that the right to re-enter is granted only on the bona fide requirements of tenants i.e. those who genuinely need a place to stay, like individuals who have no other shelter except for the building that is proposed to be re-built. In the case being referred to here, the tenant has alternative accommodation available but has chosen not to move there.The High Court also said: 'Section 14(3)(c) allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant from the premises, if he proves a bona fide requirement of the land being reconstructed. The tenant evicted has the right to re-entry, on the basis of mutual agreement between parties and new terms of tenancy.' However, in this case no new rent agreement was signed and neither new tenancy terms were set.Read on to understand how this tenant eviction case went on for more than 10 years and what should landlords and tenants know about it.Here's a timeline of events according to the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dated April 22, 2025:The tenant filed an appeal in the High Court soon after.Section 14(3)(c): Provided that the tenant evicted under this clause shall have the right to re-entry on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, to the premises in the re-built building equivalent in area to the original premises for which he was a tenant.'The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that for this particular tenant eviction case the observations, made in Rattan Chand's case in following paras, are relevant:The High Court also mentioned that the tenant opted to go to court instead of filing an appeal with the rent controller appellate authority, but since this case has been pending since a long time, the High Court decided to hear this case once again.Judgement: 'Conjoint reading of various orders passed in present matter, some of which have been upheld by the Supreme Court, with judgment of Hari Dass Sharma's case and Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006, decided on 8.7.2013, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the plea taken by the tenant seeking direction to the landlord in present matter and thus there is no illegality or impropriety in impugned order.'We have asked various lawyers about what precedent does this judgement set for tenants and landlords; here's what they said:This judgment sets a clear precedent that the right to re-entry under Section 14(3)(c) of the Rent Act is not absolute. It affirms that such a right can only be exercised by a bonafide tenant/s who has no other option to have shelter/carry on business except the building in reference proposed to be re built, in the event the premises has been reconstructed and both parties have mutually agreed on the new terms in respect of tenancy of new premises.Further such right to re-enter the new premises in the reconstructed building can be considered keeping in mind the landlord's purpose for re-construction,the landlord's bonafide requirement and that such right of re entry given to tenant does not deprive the landlord from his right to enjoy his property.The right to re-entry is never absolute, and the criteria for granting re-entry must be strict. Prior to awarding the right of re-entry, several important factors will be assessed, such as determining (i) the reasonable rent for the space and (ii) the landlord's suggested use of the space. This ruling is consistent with the ratio established in several previous cases, which makes it evident that only bone fide tenants are entitled to re-entry. Before granting a tenant re-entry or re-induction, the landlord's needs and the intended use of the building must be considered. This ruling established stringent criteria that must be met before allowing a tenant to re-enter the property.The judgment sets a precedent that strengthens the conditional nature of a tenant's right to re-entry under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, and emphasizes judicial discretion in balancing tenant and landlord rights based on case-specific circumstances.1.The ruling clarifies that the right to re-entry under Section 14(3)(c) is not absolute but conditional upon:a.The existence of a rebuilt building.b.mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant on new terms of tenancy.This aligns with the statutory language of the proviso and ensures that tenants cannot demand re-entry in the absence of a reconstructed building or without agreeing to new tenancy terms. The court's dismissal of the tenant's application due to the lack of a rebuilt structure and mutual agreement sets a clear standard for future cases.2.The judgment introduces a practical consideration that the right to re-entry is intended for tenants who genuinely require the premises for shelter or use. The court noted that the tenant, having relocated to Kandaghat after retirement, no longer had a bona fide need for the premises in Shimla. This sets a precedent that courts may evaluate the tenant's actual need for re-entry, particularly when they have alternative accommodation, to prevent misuse of the statutory provision.3.The court's finding that the tenant's son had no right to claim re-entry establishes that the right to re-entry is personal to the original tenant and cannot be transferred to third parties, such as family members, without the landlord's consent. This protects landlords from unauthorized claims by non-tenants.4.The judgment holds that applications for re-entry or directions to the landlord to commence construction are not maintainable before the tenant vacates the premises. This sets a procedural precedent that tenants must first comply with eviction orders before seeking re-entry, ensuring that landlords are not burdened with premature obligations.5.The court's decision to entertain the revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Act, despite the availability of an appellate remedy, highlights the High Court's discretionary power to pass such orders as it may deem fit on the legality or propriety of orders or proceedings under the Act.This ruling sets an important judicial precedent by interpreting Section 14(3)(c) in a tenant-landlord conflict where expectations of re-entry post-reconstruction were neither recorded nor mutually agreed. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has now clarified that post-reconstruction possession rights must flow from either a specific court direction, an undertaking by the landlord, or a written agreement. Absent these, the landlord is under no statutory obligation to reinstate the tenant.The judgment aligns with the broader judicial trend of respecting negotiated rights over implied assumptions, especially in landlord-tenant law. It serves as a cautionary precedent for tenants relying on equitable re-entry without formalized consent. Practically, it encourages both landlords and tenants to document exit and re-entry terms at the time of eviction or court proceedings to avoid prolonged litigation.This decision may influence rent control jurisprudence in other states, especially where similar provisions exist under state-specific tenancy laws, and could guide lower courts in adjudicating similar disputes.The Himachal Pradesh High Court made it clear that the right of a tenant to re-enter the premises after eviction due to reconstruction is not automatic or unconditional. While the law (specifically, Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987) allows for a possibility of re-entry, it does so only on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The Court emphasized that such a right is contingent upon fresh terms being negotiated and accepted by both parties post-reconstruction. This ruling dispels the notion that tenants have a statutory right to reclaim the property in all circumstances.Following the Act, the judgment reinforces the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act and lays down a precedent: the right to re-entry after reconstruction is intended solely for bona fide tenants who genuinely require the re-built premises for shelter. Consequently, the right to re-entry is a conditional entitlement, granted based on a demonstrable need for shelter, thus preventing the imposition of a tenant on a landlord when the tenant exhibits no genuine requirement to continue the tenancy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Bitcoin as a hedge: Evaluating Bitcoin's role in India's economic strategy
Since Bitcoin's first public release, it has developed unprecedentedly to arguably become the world's best-performing risk asset. Based on its capability for hedging against inflation , and the emergence of DeFi (Decentralised Finance), Bitcoin has witnessed increased adoption across levels, including retail, institutional and government participation. With increased activity by state players like the USA, Bhutan, El Salvador, Russia, Brazil, and many others, India is in a unique dilemma regarding Bitcoin: to be or not to be? If we take a close look at India's economic policies over the last decade and compare them with pre-Bitcoin times, a stark difference can be seen. Pre-2009 India's economic strategies were overtly reactionary to global cues, which have been transformed in the last decade as the country positions itself as one of the most proactive nations regarding economic growth. The impact of this has been massive, with India becoming the 4th largest economy in the world. At the same time, India is increasingly becoming receptive to newer economic models and experiments, something that could be highlighted through the proposed Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill of 2021, and the Supreme Court's recent direction to regulate the sector. Crypto Tracker TOP COIN SETS Crypto Blue Chip - 5 -5.10% Buy Web3 Tracker -10.91% Buy AI Tracker -11.52% Buy DeFi Tracker -12.23% Buy NFT & Metaverse Tracker -12.54% Buy TOP COINS (₹) Bitcoin 8,904,124 ( -0.56% ) Buy BNB 54,750 ( -1.64% ) Buy XRP 180 ( -2.07% ) Buy Solana 11,798 ( -2.86% ) Buy Ethereum 198,264 ( -5.56% ) Buy While many project it as a negative aspect, the intent of regulating an otherwise decentralised sector highlights the government's openness to get involved in it, especially given that India boasts one of the world's fastest Bitcoin-adopting populations. Did you Know? The world of cryptocurrencies is very dynamic. Prices can go up or down in a matter of seconds. Thus, having reliable answers to such questions is crucial for investors. View Details » This also means that in the long term, Bitcoin is increasingly garnering a favourable sentiment from the policymakers who are setting India's economic strategy for the years ahead. But questions remain — what does Bitcoin offer India's economic strategy that traditional models don't? Let's find out. Live Events Bitcoin's a hedge against inflation Global economies are going through uncertain times owing to several internal and external factors. While we will not indulge in making mathematical assumptions, if we take a look at the data of benchmark indices around the world, like the S&P 500 to the Hang Seng, it becomes clear that these indices have not performed as well as their projections. On the other hand, the global commodity market has been largely vulnerable to market dynamics. These factors have led nations to look at alternative finance or DeFi, in terms of Bitcoin, as the new-age asset has provided multibagger returns in the last few years. BTC has not only outperformed global indices, but also commodities like Gold and Silver — a trend that has piqued the interest of economists around the world. For instance, the US retail inflation on March 25 was 2.4%, as per the Consumer Price Index, a significant rise from the previous year. Similar cases of inflation have been seen in European countries like the United Kingdom and the EU. In the Indian context, the retail inflation rate has been on a downward curve for the past three years, owing to the country's economic rise in recent years, coming down to 4.6% in 2024-25 from 6.7% in FY 22-23. If we look at annualised returns over different global indices, Bitcoin has returned over 250%, more than 10 times that of NASDAQ in the second spot. In the Indian context, the Nifty 50 gave a return of approximately 40% since FY 22-23, highlighting how participation and adoption in the Bitcoin space could help India's economic strategy in the long run. Role in India's economic strategy? While many nations around the world have made significant strides in Bitcoin already, such as the USA, Bhutan and El Salvador, much of it has been reactionary. In India, DeFi is emerging as a real possibility for government participation, however, much of it weighs on the possibility of establishing a regulatory framework. India has been a vocal advocate of creating a global framework for regulating Bitcoin and other VDAs, and it is being considered as the lynchpin of the country officially joining the race. However, while officially the Indian government does not endorse Bitcoin, prominent reports have revealed that the country has used Bitcoin for energy trade with one of its European allies. While the efficacy of the report has not been admitted by the Indian government, what it shows is Bitcoin's increasing popularity at the upper echelons of the government. However, the significant tax levied on the capital gains from Bitcoin and other VDAs is largely considered counterproductive in this aspect. We must understand that India's economic strategy to become a developed nation by 2047, or the goal of Viksit Bharat, is a multilayered strategy. While Bitcoin is not included in the ongoing cohort, its rising popularity and governmental agencies like SEBI and RBI having strong opinions on the asset means it may have a role to play in the future, given that regulations or frameworks are established in a universally accepted means. This does not mean that India may create a Bitcoin strategic reserve, or use it as legal tender like El Salvador, but in a larger context that benefits the country's bid to become a developed nation. Furthermore, the already existing high adoption rate will supplement this bid and could position India as one of the innovators when it comes to a robust economic strategy. (The author Roshan Aslam is Cofounder & CEO, GoSats. Views are own)
Economic Times
5 hours ago
- Economic Times
Bitcoin as a hedge: Evaluating Bitcoin's role in India's economic strategy
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Crypto TrackerPowered By TOP COINS TOP COIN SETS Bitcoin 89,04,427 ( -0.6 %) Buy BNB 54,767 ( -1.63 %) Buy XRP 179.92 ( -2.11 %) Buy Solana 11,794.26 ( -3 %) Buy Ethereum 1,98,114 ( -5.7 %) Buy Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Bitcoin's a hedge against inflation Role in India's economic strategy? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of .) Since Bitcoin 's first public release, it has developed unprecedentedly to arguably become the world's best-performing risk asset. Based on its capability for hedging against inflation , and the emergence of DeFi (Decentralised Finance), Bitcoin has witnessed increased adoption across levels, including retail, institutional and government participation. With increased activity by state players like the USA, Bhutan, El Salvador, Russia, Brazil, and many others, India is in a unique dilemma regarding Bitcoin: to be or not to be?If we take a close look at India's economic policies over the last decade and compare them with pre-Bitcoin times, a stark difference can be seen. Pre-2009 India's economic strategies were overtly reactionary to global cues, which have been transformed in the last decade as the country positions itself as one of the most proactive nations regarding economic impact of this has been massive, with India becoming the 4th largest economy in the world. At the same time, India is increasingly becoming receptive to newer economic models and experiments, something that could be highlighted through the proposed Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill of 2021, and the Supreme Court's recent direction to regulate the many project it as a negative aspect, the intent of regulating an otherwise decentralised sector highlights the government's openness to get involved in it, especially given that India boasts one of the world's fastest Bitcoin-adopting also means that in the long term, Bitcoin is increasingly garnering a favourable sentiment from the policymakers who are setting India's economic strategy for the years ahead. But questions remain — what does Bitcoin offer India's economic strategy that traditional models don't? Let's find economies are going through uncertain times owing to several internal and external factors. While we will not indulge in making mathematical assumptions, if we take a look at the data of benchmark indices around the world, like the S&P 500 to the Hang Seng, it becomes clear that these indices have not performed as well as their projections. On the other hand, the global commodity market has been largely vulnerable to market factors have led nations to look at alternative finance or DeFi, in terms of Bitcoin, as the new-age asset has provided multibagger returns in the last few years. BTC has not only outperformed global indices, but also commodities like Gold and Silver — a trend that has piqued the interest of economists around the instance, the US retail inflation on March 25 was 2.4%, as per the Consumer Price Index, a significant rise from the previous year. Similar cases of inflation have been seen in European countries like the United Kingdom and the EU. In the Indian context, the retail inflation rate has been on a downward curve for the past three years, owing to the country's economic rise in recent years, coming down to 4.6% in 2024-25 from 6.7% in FY we look at annualised returns over different global indices, Bitcoin has returned over 250%, more than 10 times that of NASDAQ in the second spot. In the Indian context, the Nifty 50 gave a return of approximately 40% since FY 22-23, highlighting how participation and adoption in the Bitcoin space could help India's economic strategy in the long many nations around the world have made significant strides in Bitcoin already, such as the USA, Bhutan and El Salvador, much of it has been reactionary. In India, DeFi is emerging as a real possibility for government participation, however, much of it weighs on the possibility of establishing a regulatory framework. India has been a vocal advocate of creating a global framework for regulating Bitcoin and other VDAs, and it is being considered as the lynchpin of the country officially joining the while officially the Indian government does not endorse Bitcoin, prominent reports have revealed that the country has used Bitcoin for energy trade with one of its European allies. While the efficacy of the report has not been admitted by the Indian government, what it shows is Bitcoin's increasing popularity at the upper echelons of the government. However, the significant tax levied on the capital gains from Bitcoin and other VDAs is largely considered counterproductive in this must understand that India's economic strategy to become a developed nation by 2047, or the goal of Viksit Bharat, is a multilayered strategy. While Bitcoin is not included in the ongoing cohort, its rising popularity and governmental agencies like SEBI and RBI having strong opinions on the asset means it may have a role to play in the future, given that regulations or frameworks are established in a universally accepted does not mean that India may create a Bitcoin strategic reserve, or use it as legal tender like El Salvador, but in a larger context that benefits the country's bid to become a developed nation. Furthermore, the already existing high adoption rate will supplement this bid and could position India as one of the innovators when it comes to a robust economic strategy.(The author Roshan Aslam is Cofounder & CEO, GoSats. Views are own)(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
