The Supreme Court has ruled that a landlord or owner of a property has the right to evict a tenant for the bona fide personal use of the tenanted premises either for himself or his family.
It said the tenant had no authority to dictate terms to the landlord on the manner of use of the property.
“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 said in a judgment.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by a landlord, Kanahiya Lal, challenging the concurrent orders passed by the district court and Jharkhand High Court quashing the eviction proceedings launched against the tenant, Md Ehsan, and others in the Chatra municipality area.
A rent control court had earlier ruled in favour of Lal by permitting him to evict Ehsan as the landlord had pleaded that he wanted to use the premises for setting up an ultrasound machine centre for his two unemployed sons. However, the
district court and thereafter the high court had ruled in favour of the tenant, saying he cannot be evicted. Aggrieved, Lal moved the apex court.
Upholding Lal's plea, the Supreme Court said the landlord may have other properties under the 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 centre for
his 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.... Therefore, the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord stands duly established,” Justice Mithal, who authored the judgment, said.