Tenent Cannot Dictate Landlord Should Choose Another Property to Start Business.

The Supreme Court has held that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord which accommodation should be treated as suitable for the landlord's bona fide requirement, nor can the tenant insist that the landlord start a business from some other premises suggested by the tenant.

Allowing an appeal filed by the landlord, the Court set aside a Bombay High Court order which had overturned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreeing eviction of a tenant from a non-residential premises in Kamathipura, Mumbai.

Background

The eviction suit concerned a commercial premises located on the ground floor of a property at Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for starting a business for his daughter-in-law. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court accepted the landlord's case and decreed eviction.

However, the Bombay High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, reversed these concurrent findings after undertaking a detailed scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence, holding that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide.

Supreme Court's reasoning

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi  found that the revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction. The Bench observed that microscopic reappreciation of evidence is impermissible in revision, particularly when two courts have concurrently recorded findings in favour of the landlord.

On the issue of bona fide need, the Court noted that the landlord had specifically sought the ground-floor premises, which was commercial in nature, for his daughter-in-law's business. The upper floors of the building were residential, and therefore could not be treated as suitable alternatives.

The tenant had argued that the landlord had other space available and had even obtained a commercial electricity connection for a room during the pendency of the proceedings. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that such factors could not nullify the landlord's bona fide requirement.

The Court reiterated that a tenant cannot propose alternative accommodation and compel the landlord to accept the tenant's assessment of suitability. Relying on its earlier precedent in Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi [(2016) 10 SCC 209], the Court underscored that it is the landlord's prerogative to decide where and how he or his family members should conduct business.

"The defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff- landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein,"  the Court observed.

High Court exceeded revisional jurisdiction

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's approach of re-examining evidence in minute detail was “ex facie without jurisdiction” in revisional proceedings. Since the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were neither perverse nor without authority of law, interference was unwarranted.

Accordingly, the Court restored the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

Considering that the tenant had been in occupation of the premises for nearly five decades, the Supreme Court granted time until June 30, 2026, to vacate the property. The extension was made subject to payment of arrears of rent within one month, continued payment of monthly rent, and filing of a customary undertaking before the Bombay High Court.

The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would entitle the landlord to execute the decree forthwith.

Case : Rajani Manohar Kuntha v Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1253

Click here to read the judgment