Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently said that a landlord can get a tenant evicted from his property over the bona fide need, which, however, has to be the real one than mere a desire 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," a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and N Kotiswar Singh said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Kanahaiya Lal Arya against Jharkhand High Court and appellate court's orders of 2022 and 2006 respectively against dismissal of his eviction suit in respect of a property in Chatra.

The appellant-owner filed the eviction suit against the respondents tenant, Md Ehshan and others on the ground of default in payment of rent and refusal to vacate; and for personal need of the suit premises for establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons.

In 2006, the suit was decreed on the ground of bona fide need of the appellant-landlord holding that the oral and documentary evidence proved that the appellant-landlord had to install the ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons and he had established his capability to purchase such a machine and had proved his annual income to be Rs 4,00,000. He had also proved that the suit premises was the most appropriate place for the installation of such machines as there was a medical clinic and a pathology center adjacent to it. The suit was, however, dismissed on the ground of default in payment of rent.

The first appellate court reversed the eviction order, which was affirmed by the high court.

Before the apex court, the appellant landlord, 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.

His counsel contended the first appellate court and the high court manifestly erred in law in holding that he had failed to prove his bona fide need or that no evidence was adduced by him to prove that his two unemployed sons had any expertise in handling the ultrasound machine.

She said the establishment and running of the ultrasound machine was ordinarily done by the doctors or the technicians employed and for that purpose it was not necessary that the sons themselves should have any expertise in running it.

The respondent tennant, on the opposite, said a compromise was arrived at between the parties in a 1988 suit whereunder he was allowed to occupy the premises with respect to three pucca rooms constructed by appellant-landlord as tenant in perpetuity. Therefore, the suit for eviction was not maintainable.

Secondly, their counsel said, the appellant-landlord had sufficient accommodation available with him to start any new business either for himself or for his two unemployed sons and did not require the suit premises bona fidely.

He also claimed the appellant-landlord had misused the partial eviction order passed earlier by letting out the said vacated premises to another person at a higher rent instead of using it for the purpose it was got vacated.

The court, however, said, "The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. 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".

In the case at hand, the bench said the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under 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 for his two 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, the court said.

Secondly, the court pointed out that it had come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises was the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it was situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and was the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine.

"Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing or 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," the bench said.

The court also found as "without substance" the argument that his two unemployed sons did not have any expertise or training to run the ultrasound machine.

"It is common knowledge that these days 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 bench said.

Therefore, court said, the appellate court and the high court were not justified in disbelieving the bona fide need of the appellant landlord solely on the ground that his two sons did not possess any expertise for running an ultrasound machine

With regard to a compromise of March 20, 1988 between the parties, the bench noted, the compromise revealed that the appellant landlord had agreed that the respondents-tenant shall continue to be a tenant of the appellant with respect to three pucca rooms which had been re-constructed 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," the bench said.

The clause in the compromise that the respondents-tenant would continue to be a tenant does not mean that the appellant-landlord has given up his right to initiate proceedings for eviction against him for all times to come, the court said.

"Therefore, on the strength of the compromise decree, it cannot be said that the present proceedings for eviction are not maintainable," the bench held.

The court also pointed out the said partial decree was based on bona fide need of the appellant-landlord to establish his brother-in-law. The said need was altogether a different need.

"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. On the said date, the need of the appellant-landlord stands established. The said need would not get eroded by any earlier decree of eviction of the year 1988," the bench said.

The court set aside the orders of the high court and the first appellate court, holding that the appellant-landlord had proved his bona fide need for the suit premises.

Case Title: Kanahaiya Lal Arya Vs Md Ehshan & Ors