“Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the court is not to sit on the armchair of landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilised. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their need,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.
Landlords cannot be deprived of beneficial enjoyment of their property and are vested with the right to decide how to utilise their possessions, the Delhi High Court said on Wednesday while upholding an order for vacation of tenanted premises.바카라 웹사이트
The high court said it is trite law that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how the property has to be utilised.
“Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the court is not to sit on the armchair of landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilised. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their need,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.
The high court passed the judgement while dismissing a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging a trial court라이브 바카라 order of eviction of a shop at Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg here.
The landlord said he and his son are joint owners of the property, where several shops have been given on rent, and he has been running a hotel on the first floor and those above that.
He said his son, who has completed his education abroad, wishes to run an independent business, and has decided to start a plush restaurant for which they require the tenanted portions back.
The tenant, in his plea, said the landlords in their eviction petition did not disclose the exact area under their possession and the space occupied by 14 tenants.
He claimed the eviction petition was nothing but an afterthought as property prices and rent in the area have risen astronomically. He said the petition was filed in order to seek higher rent from him or to sell the tenanted premises at a premium.
The high court, in its verdict, said there was no material on record to show that the need of the landlords was either malafide or fanciful. It dismissed the revision petition, saying it had no merit.
“The desire of the landlords of running a restaurant cannot be faulted with as they are the best judge of their requirement and it is trite law that tenant cannot dictate to landlords as to how the property has to be utilised,” it said.
The high court noted that the material placed on record showed that the tenanted premises was genuinely required for running a restaurant.
-With PTI Input