10 years on, ex-CM HS Brar’s daughter wins legal battle against tenants of her commercial building in Sector 17, Chandigarh

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, July 10

After fighting a legal battle for over 10 years, Bubli Brar, daughter of Punjab’s former Chief Minister HS Brar, has won a case against tenants of her commercial building in Sector 17, Chandigarh.

Chandigarh Rent Controller Rahul Garg has directed her seven tenants to vacate SCO No 68-70, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, and hand over the possession of the premises to the owner within two months of the order. Bubli Brar had filed a case in 2014 under Section13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

In the petition, she said she was the owner of 66 per cent share in the property and after the death of her mother, she issued a legal notice to all tenants in 2013, intimating them that she had become the owner of the rented premises on the basis of a registered will of her mother.

She also requested them to remove the building violations and vacate the premises as the same was required for her personal use and occupation. She said despite the receipt of the legal notice, the respondents neither removed the building violations, nor vacated the premises.

They started making payment of rent to her and admitted her to be the landlord. She claimed it was specifically mentioned in the legal notice that if the Chandigarh Administration imposed any penalty or damages, then the respondents should be solely responsible to make its payment;

Bubli Brar said she owned 66 per cent share in the entire SCOs while the rest of the floors and leftout portions of the floors are in possession of legal heirs of the brother. In the petition, she said she wanted to open a world-class departmental store in the entire basement, ground floor and mezzanine floor.

On the other hand, respondent tenants opposed the rent petition They said the need of the petitioner was not genuine, honest and real.

After hearing of the arguments, the Rent Controller said in the present petition, the petitioner had only claimed the portion situated on the basement, ground and mezzanine floors for her personal use and occupation and not the portions situated on the other floors of the said SCOs. Moreover, the law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and it is the landlord who is to see the more suitability of the property required to him for his bona fide personal necessity.