‘Long tenancy can’t keep landlord from property’

If you thought a long-term tenancy could help you resist eviction by the landlord, think again. Referring to relevant rent laws, a city court has sent out a message to all tenants that they cannot dictate terms to landlords needing their premises for their requirements in course of time. Moreover, these “requirements” can not be subjected to the satisfaction of the tenants, authorising them to decide whether the landlords’ needs are genuine or not. Allowing the petition of landlords who had been trying to get their house evicted for the last few years, Senior Civil Judge Ajay Goel said a court would neither interfere with a landlord’s right to beneficially enjoy his properties nor did a tenant have the legally enforceable right to determine his necessities. Moreover, a protracted tenancy cannot accord any sort of right to a tenant to contest an eviction petition basing his or her argument on the ground that they have been living in the premises for long, the court observed. “The respondent (tenant in this case) cannot dictate terms to the landlord and a landlord is the best judge of his requirements. It is not the concern of the court to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard. There is no law that deprives the landlord of beneficial enjoyment of his property,” the court held, citing various Supreme Court judgments on the issue. In the case under consideration, Prem Chander Saxena along with his two brothers had sought the eviction of Prakash, who was living in two rooms and a courtyard in his Karol Bagh house. As per their petition, they have 16 members in the family and required the tenanted area for their own residential purposes, and also for giving a separate room to a kin who was to be married soon. Prakash, however, refused to vacate the premises, claiming he had been a tenant for the last 55 years and that the landlords’ requirements were not bonafide. There were 22 others rooms in the same premises that were lying vacant and the eviction was sought only with a view to getting rent at an increased rate, he contended. After a legal notice failed to yield results, Saxena sought the intervention of the court in getting back his property. The judge, following a perusal of the rival contentions, noted that not only were Saxena’s requirements per se well justified, the tenant did not have any right whatsoever to decide this question. “Instant petition has been filed by the three brothers jointly, which shows it is a large undivided Hindu family and the mere contention of respondent that he is been a tenant for more than 50 years does not give him the right to remain in perpetuity,” the court held.