The Supreme Court allowed an appeal of a landlord in an eviction suit and observed that the landlord is the best judge to decide which of his properties should be vacated for satisfying his particular need as alleged in the suit.

The dispute in the appeal related to the eviction of the respondents-tenants from the premises in dispute i.e., a house existing in Jharkhand’s Chatra Municipality.

Expounding on the law relating to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, the Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh said, “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.”

AOR Reshmi Rea Sinha represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The appellant, as the owner and landlord of the said house, filedan Eviction Suit against the respondents-tenants on the grounds of default in payment of rent, refusal to vacate and for personal need of the suit premises for establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. The court of first instance decreed the suit after contest on the ground of bona fide need of the appellant-landlord. The appellant-landlord had established his capability to purchase such a machine and had proved his annual income to be Rs.4,00,000.

The First Appellate Court reversed the order of eviction passed by the court of first instance, and the same was also affirmed by the High Court in the Second Appeal. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant-landlord approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the appellant landlord had confined his case for the decree of eviction only on the ground of bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for the benefit of his two unemployed sons. The Bench observed that it is for the appellant-landlord to make 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. The Bench noticed the clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine as it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre.

Moreover, the appellant-landlord had 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”, it added.

The Bench also rejected the argument that his two unemployed sons do not have any expertise/training to run the ultrasound machine. It was observed that medical devices such as ultrasound machines are installed and established and are ordinarily run by the technicians or the medical experts who are engaged for the said purpose. The person establishing such devices or ultrasound machines himself need not have any expertise in running the same.

The Court further noted that a compromise was entered into in the year 2008, whereby the appellant-landlord had agreed that the respondent-tenant shall continue to be a tenant of the appellant concerning three pucca rooms, which have been reconstructed by the appellant-landlord after demolishing the portion under tenancy. “There is no clause in the compromise deed which stipulates that the appellant-landlord will not initiate any proceeding for eviction against the respondents-tenant in future. Naturally, there cannot be such a clause inasmuch as such a compromise does not intend to take away the right of the landlord to initiate eviction proceedings against the tenant if he defaults in payment of rent, makes material alterations damaging the property or otherwise ceases to use the same for his benefit and lets it out to an outsider”, it said.

The Bench also stated that the decree of the year 1988, even if not used for the purpose intended, it would not affect the rights of the appellant-landlord, which accrued to him in the year 2001. The need of the appellant-landlord for getting the suit premises vacated for establishing his two sons has to be seen on the date of filing of the suit, i.e., November 28, 2001.

Thus, in light of the fact that the appellant-landlord proved his bona fide need for the suit premises, the Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and ordered, “The suit of the appellant-landlord stands decreed.”

Cause Title: Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 271)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Reshmi Rea Sinha

Respondent: Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Fauzia Shakil

Click here to read/download Order


Justice Pankaj MithalJustice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.