Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.

Upholding a needy landlord’s right to evict a tenant, the Supreme Court has set aside an Uttarakhand High Court order which said that “greater comparative hardship” would be caused to a tenant, as compared to his landlord, if a decree of eviction was passed against him.

The apex bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.P. Desai, in a recent judgment, described as erroneous the Sep 12, 2005 verdict of the high court.

The judges said: “It is well settled (that) the landlord’s requirements”, seeking eviction of a tenant, “need not be a dire necessity”.

“In our opinion, the hardship the appellant (owner of the rented premises) would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be greater than the hardship the respondent (tenant) would suffer by having to move out to another place,” said the apex court.

Holding that the circumstances of comparative hardship could not be the sole determinative factor in deciding tenancy disputes, the apex court said: “We are mindful of the fact that whenever a tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent.”

If comparative hardships of the landlord and the tenant were the right approach in deciding tenancy disputes, then “an affluent landlord can never get possession of his premises even if he proves all the bona fide requirements”.

A tenant’s hardship could be mitigated by granting him a longer period to move out of the premises so that he can make alternative arrangements.

The high court while holding that the requirements of the premises owner Mohammad Ayub were bona fide, yet it granted him a partial relief holding that tenant Mukesh Chand would suffer a “greater comparative hardship” if he was evicted.

Ayub purchased the house in question, Chand was already in tenancy of the earlier owner. Chand was occupying two shops facing the road and two rooms in the rear at a monthly rent of Rs.35.

Over the years Ayub’s family grew and consequently requirements for more space was felt by him. For residential purposes and needs of livelihood, he asked Chand to vacate the premises.

While holding that the requirements of Ayub were bona fide, the high court gave just one room to Ayub and allowed Chand to continue occupying the other three.

“The court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or imagine that he could profitably do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start,” the judgment said adding, that “it was for the landlord to which business he wants to do”.

It was “not uncommon for a Muslim family to do the business of non-vegetarian food”, the court said that the district court was wrong in holding as “pretence” Ayub’s plea that his sons wanted to start the general merchant business because they were already dealing in eggs.

The apex court also noted that Chand did not give any satisfactory answer to the court’s query whether he made any “genuine efforts to find an alternative accommodation during the pendency of litigation”.

“The high court has not given any reason why only the partial relief was being granted to the appellant (Ayub),” said the apex court.



3 Responses to “Supreme court upholds needy landlord’s right to evict tenant”

  1. Amit Agarwal

    my commercial property which is under rent controll act. my tenant has stop to pay rent f rom last one year . what i can do to vaccant our property.


    you have not disclose, which state your house is. the tenancy rights are automatecally inherited to their son & daughter, since you have already sufficient accommodation you cannot evict them on your bonafide need, only you can get rent as per market rate. See new ruling of Apex Court in Mohd. Ahmad -vs- Atma Ram reported in AIR 2011 SC 1921


    I am 83 years old retired first class central Govt gazetted officer let out my premises to a tenant in the year 1972 for entire 1st floor comprising 3 bed rooms ,kitchen,privy, varandah and the roof where my tenant only have access against Rs 150/- per month. my tenant died in 1998 then his wife alongwith one son and one daughter started continuing the tenancy on the same rent. Then wife of the original tenant died in 2002. her son and daughter are not willing to vacate the premise evenafter notice is sent to vacate. Rent controller has raised rent from 150 to Rs240/-. Is it a rent now a days for very reputed area and that too for 1000 sq ft flat?
    PL. advice whether I can get the advantage of the recent supreme court judgement favouring reasonable requirement and evict my tenant. Moreover they are never my tenant only their father was tennat.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *