Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das on 7 October, 2009
I find that the
ratio of this case does not apply to the factual matrix at hand
because in the Ram Babu Case, the issue was whether a son who
has been employed in his father's textile business can now set-up a
footwear business in the tenanted business without prior experience.
The Court in the abovementioned case held that the lack of prior-
experience is not a bar for a landlord to start a new business. There
is also no dispute that it is not open for the Court or the tenant to
dictate what the landlord must do with his premises, but, at the
same time, the landlord is required to demonstrate that the projected
need of tenanted premises is genuine and authentic, and is not his
mere wish and desire. It is not the subjective decision of the
landlord alone, which would entitle him straight eviction order
against the tenant, but the objective assessment by the Controller of
the bona fide requirement of the landlord. It is not that whatever
landlord would say, in every case, would be taken to be as gospel
truth. If that was so, then, on the mere asking of every landlord that
he needs the premises for doing his business and he is the judge and
R. C. Rev. No. 102/2012 Page 9 of 11
master of his decisions and choices, the statutory protection
afforded to the tenant, would become meaningless. That is not the
intent of the legislation. The applicability of above proposition is
only after the landlord is able to demonstrate that his assertion of
requirement of the tenanted premises is authentic and genuine. If he
is able to show and demonstrate so, then certainly neither the tenant
nor this Court could dictate terms upon him as to how and in what
manner he should utilize his premises. The projected requirement of
the tenanted premises, based on his subjective decision, is required
to be tested by the Court.