HC upholds humanitarian approach, allows elderly landlord’s son to pursue case 

In a judgment reflecting judicial sensitivity towards the struggles of the infirm and the elderly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a Rent Controller's order permitting an 85-year-old landlord to pursue his eviction case through his son, citing the landlord's severe health issues and impaired mental condition.

Justice Vikas Bahl dismissed the tenants' revision petition, which had challenged Abohar Rent Controller’s decision to allow the landlord to be represented by his son. The court noted that the landlord suffered from “diffuse cerebral atrophy” and impaired memory, as confirmed by a medical board from Abohar Civil Hospital.

The dispute arose during the course of eviction proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The landlord applied for permission to allow his son to represent him, stating that his advanced age and medical conditions, including impaired memory and a damaged food pipe requiring surgery, made him incapable of effectively giving evidence. The medical report, submitted by a board of doctors, concluded, “As per history, investigation and mental status examination, the patient has diffuse cerebral atrophy. He has Impaired Memory.”

Despite this, the tenants argued that his mental condition was stable and was “purposely trying to avoid further cross-examination”. They pointed to the absence of a direct reference to “unstable mind” in the special power of attorney executed on August 23. But the court noted that the document explicitly mentioned his condition and authorised his son to act on his behalf.

The court also observed that the petitioners did not challenge the medical board’s findings or seek to cross-examine the doctors. The report was unchallenged, and the counsel for the petitioner-tenants did not lead any evidence regarding the respondent’s health status, the court observed, emphasising that the Rent Controller’s decision was based on uncontested medical evidence.

Justice Bahl upheld the Rent Controller’s finding that the landlord was unfit to personally pursue the case and concluded that the petitioners’ arguments lacked merit. “There is no infirmity in the impugned order... and the same is upheld,” the court stated.