In Brief
A tenant occupying a shop in Nabha since 1960 was ordered evicted by the Rent Controller on the ground of the landlords' bonafide personal necessity to partition and develop their joint property. The tenant appealed, arguing the landlords had contradicted themselves and failed to prove genuine need. The High Court upheld the eviction, holding that 'personal necessity' under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 includes residential use and family business purposes. Variations in how the landlords articulated their need (partition versus children's business) did not make their claim malafide. No perversity or illegality was found in the lower courts' concurrent factual findings, so the revision was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.