The Supreme Court has reiterated that a landlord is the best judge of which rented premises should be vacated to fulfill their specific needs, and a tenant cannot oppose eviction merely on the grounds that the landlord owns other properties.
“The law on tenant eviction due to the landlord’s bona fide need is well settled. The requirement must be genuine, not just a mere wish to vacate the premises. It is solely the landlord’s prerogative to decide which property should be vacated to meet their need, and the tenant cannot dictate this choice.”
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal of a landlord whose suit for eviction—filed to establish an ultrasound machine business for his two unemployed sons—was dismissed by the trial court and later upheld by the High Court.
Rejection of Tenant’s Argument
The tenant argued that since the landlord owned other properties, he should have sought eviction from a different premise. However, the Court dismissed this contention, emphasizing that once a landlord’s bona fide need is established, the tenant cannot insist on eviction from a different property based on their own convenience.
Highlighting that the suit premises were ideally located next to a medical clinic and pathology center, making it the most suitable location for setting up the ultrasound business, the Court concluded that the landlord’s need was legitimate and well-founded.
“The landlord may own other tenanted properties, but once he has chosen to vacate the suit premises for establishing an ultrasound business for his unemployed sons, he cannot be compelled to initiate eviction proceedings against other tenants instead. The decision lies with the landlord, and no legal error can be found in it.”
Further, the Court noted that the trial court had already determined that the suit premises were the most appropriate accommodation for the proposed business. The landlord had also proven his financial capability to invest in an ultrasound machine and had demonstrated that the eviction was necessary to provide employment for his sons and support the family’s income.
Verdict
The Court concluded that the landlord’s bona fide need had been duly established and, accordingly, allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan & Ors.
