The Apex Court on 18 .09.2018, in RAVI CHAND MANGLA v DIMPAL SOLANIA & ORS , had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant in connection to an eviction.A petition pertaining to an eviction had been filed by the Appellant under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 which was eventually dismissed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by Appellate Authority and High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.Being aggrieved an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

FACTS: The Appellant being the landlord of the contested premises that had been let out on rent had filed for a petition on eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 in order to eject the tenants for reasons based on failure to pay rents ,sub-letting the property that was in dispute, impairing the value , creating nuisance for the neighbors and etc.
The Rent Controller concluded that the rent had been deposited by the respondents in the Court from the time that had been stipulated and that there was no exclusive proof of sub letting the property that was in dispute, also that the issues relating to the grill manufacture business had also been rejected by the Controller, along with allegations regarding the altering of the property and creating nuisance in neighborhood .The Controller further opined that the property on rent could be used for other business purpose as well apart from the saw mill business. As such resulting in the dismissal of the petition.The High Court too observed that there was no sub-letting or impairment of the disputed premise which eventually led to the dismissing of the appeal.

CONTENTION FROM APPELLANT’s SIDE: It was contended by the Appellant that the premise in dispute was intended to be used for constructing a hospital for charitable purposes.

CONTENTION FROM RESPONDENT’S SIDE: The contention raised from the respondent’s side was that an eviction would result in loss in their livelihood.

HELD:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the concerned appeal. It was held by the Apex Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case that based on the agreement , there had been no restraints upon the respondents to carry a business that would be concerned to the business of saw mill solely and that it was the upon the liberty of the tenants to chose any business of their choice.

[1] https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/18382/18382_2008_Judgement_18-Sep-2018.pdf