The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a landlord in an eviction case, affirming his right to decide on property vacating for genuine needs, emphasizing tenants’ lack of influence over such decisions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by a landlord in an eviction suit, emphasizing that the landlord is the best judge to decide which of his properties should be vacated to fulfill his legitimate needs. The case involved the eviction of tenants from a house in Jharkhand’s Chatra Municipality.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh stated,
“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 appellant-landlord, who owned the disputed property, filed an eviction suit against the tenants on the grounds of:
Also Read: Prashant Bhushan: One Nation, One Election Is Unconstitutional & Impractical
- Default in rent payment
- Refusal to vacate the premises
- Bona fide personal need to set up an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons
The trial court ruled in favor of the landlord, acknowledging his financial ability to establish an ultrasound facility and confirming that his annual income was Rs. 4,00,000. However, the First Appellate Court overturned this decision, and the High Court upheld the reversal, prompting the landlord to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that:
- The landlord’s need was genuine, as the premises was ideally located near a medical clinic and a pathology center, making it suitable for an ultrasound facility.
- The landlord had the financial capacity to invest in the ultrasound machine, proving his intent to set up a business for his unemployed sons.
- The tenant cannot dictate which of the landlord’s properties should be vacated to meet his requirements.
The tenants argued that the landlord’s sons lacked the necessary expertise to run the ultrasound machine. However, the Bench clarified that medical devices are typically operated by trained technicians or medical experts, and ownership does not require technical knowledge.
The Court also examined a 2008 compromise agreement, in which the landlord allowed the tenant to continue occupying three pucca rooms after demolishing a portion of the old structure. However, the Bench stated,
“There is no clause in the compromise deed that prevents the landlord from initiating eviction proceedings in the future.”
Also Read: Former CJI UU Lalit to Appear Before Panel for One Nation One Election Discussion
Considering all factors, the Supreme Court upheld the landlord’s right to evict the tenants. The Bench set aside the High Court’s decision and ruled:
“The suit of the appellant-landlord stands decreed.”
This landmark ruling reinforces the rights of landlords in eviction cases and clarifies that tenants cannot dictate how a landlord utilizes his own property.
Case Title: Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 271)
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
