The Rajasthan High Court ruled that it is not the tenant's responsibility to prove that the landlord does not have a bonafide necessity for the rented property.

The case involved a shop rented by the petitioner before 1995. The landlord purchased the shop in 1995 and later sought the tenant's eviction, claiming she needed the property for her business activities. The Rent Tribunal initially dismissed the eviction application, but the Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed it, leading to the present petition.

The Court emphasized that the need for the property should be evaluated from the landlord's perspective, not the tenant's.

A Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, "In the humble opinion of this Court, it is for the landlord to decide and take a call for how and when the rented premises is required to be used by the Owner of the Property i.e. the landlord. This Court is of the view that it is not within the domain of the tenant to suggest or to show that the landlord is not having the bonafide necessity for the rented premises. The necessity of a rented property for bonafide use is required to be adjudged from the perspective of the landlord and not from the perspective of the tenant,"

Advocate Sajjan Singh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Tribhuvan Gupta appeared for the Respondent.

The Court upheld the Appellate Rent Tribunal's decision, agreeing that there were no alternative shops available for the landlord's business. The Court further clarified that it is the landlord's prerogative to determine how and when the rented property is needed. The Court added, “Rent Appellant Tribunal, Udaipur has correctly appreciated the facts submitted before it and has come to the conclusion that there is no other shop which is available to the respondent for undertaking her business activities. In the humble opinion of this Court, it is for the landlord to decide and take a call for how and when the rented premises is required to be used by the Owner of the Property i.e. the landlord.”

The petition was therefore dismissed.

Cause Title: Rakesh Sen v. Ajab Bano, [2025:RJ-JD:5052]

Click here to read/download Order


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Vinit Kumar Mathur

Suchita Shukla

Assistant Editor

Suchita Shukla is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum, with a strong foundation in legal research and writing, she brings over 4.5 years of experience to the table, having honed her skills in the dynamic field of law. She covers Supreme Court and High Courts. She completed her BA-LLB (Hons.) 5-year course with specialisation in Intellectual Property rights from Galgotias University. Since 2019, apart from having worked at a legal publishing house she has also ventured into legal journalism.