Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord Should Get Another Property Vacated For Bona Fide Need : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the landlord or property owner is the best judge of which portion of the rented premises should be vacated to meet their specific needs, and the tenant cannot oppose eviction merely on the grounds that the landlord owns other properties.

“The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction.”, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and N Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal of the landlord, whose suit for eviction filed out of bona fide need to establish an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons was dismissed by the trial court and subsequently upheld by the High Court.

The Court rejected an argument made by the tenant that the landlord had other properties available and could have sought eviction from a different premise instead of the one in dispute. Instead, it said once the bona fide needs of the landlord were established, then the tenant cannot compel the landlord to seek eviction from a different property based on its convenience.

The Court emphasized that the landlord is the best judge of which rented premises would best serve his specific needs. Noting that the appellant sought eviction of the suit property due to its proximity to a medical clinic and a pathology center making it an ideal location for establishing an ultrasound machine business the Court held that the bona fide need was duly established.

“In the case at hand, the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated for the bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against the other tenants. It is for the appellant-landlord to take a decision in this regard and once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision. Secondly, it has come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine. Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing/establishing an ultrasound machine and that his two sons are unemployed and as such the suit premises is required to establish them in business and to augment the family's income. Therefore, the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord stands duly established.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: KANAHAIYA LAL ARYA VERSUS MD. EHSHAN & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, AOR Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Adv.