The Supreme Court rules that tenants cannot dictate which property a landlord should use or instruct them on where to conduct business. This landmark verdict reinforces landlords’ rights and limits tenants’ influence over commercial premises.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment reaffirming a landlord’s autonomy in cases of commercial eviction. The Apex Court held that a tenant cannot dictate the suitability of alternative accommodation or instruct the landlord on where to conduct their business. This ruling comes in the context of a dispute over premises in Kamathipura, Mumbai.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a suit filed by a landlord seeking eviction from non-residential premises located at Plot CTS No. 425, 12th Lane, Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. The landlord claimed that the premises were required for the bona fide need of his daughter-in-law.
- Trial Court and First Appellate Court: Both courts ruled in favor of the landlord, confirming the bona fide nature of the requirement.
- Bombay High Court: On revisional jurisdiction, the High Court reversed the previous findings, scrutinizing pleadings and evidence in depth, and ruled in favor of the tenant.
- Supreme Court Appeal: The landlord approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s judgment.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Bench, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a “microscopic scrutiny” of evidence in its revisional role.
Key observations include:
- Revisional jurisdiction does not allow courts to re-examine evidence in detail unless lower court findings are ex facie without authority.
- The High Court’s interference in the concurrent findings of fact was unwarranted.
The Court clarified:
“Microscopic scrutiny as done by the High Court in revisional exercise is ex facie without jurisdiction and warrants interference.”
On Bona Fide Need and Suitability of Premises
The Supreme Court addressed the tenant’s objections regarding the suitability of the premises:
- The landlord required the ground-floor commercial space.
- The tenant suggested alternative residential spaces on upper floors and one room on the ground floor.
- The Court ruled that tenants cannot dictate terms to landlords about which property is suitable for business.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Tenant Can Never Become Owner of Rented Property
Citing Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi (2016) 10 SCC 209, the Court reiterated:
“The defendant proposing alternative accommodation cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein.”
The Supreme Court allowed the landlord’s appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court judgment and restoring the rulings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
However, considering the tenant’s long-term occupancy of over 50 years, the Court granted time until June 30, 2026, to vacate the premises, with the following conditions:
- Payment of arrears within one month.
- Continued payment of regular rent.
- Filing of a usual undertaking within three weeks before the Registrar of the Bombay High Court.
- Peaceful handover of the property without creating third-party rights.
The Court clarified that failure to comply with these conditions could result in execution of the decree without affecting the granted timeline.
Case Title:
Rajani Manohar Kuntha & Ors. v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya & Ors.
SLP (C) No. 30407 of 2024
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Rented Property
