DATE: 25/02/2025
BENCH: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N Kotiswar Singh
FACTS:
The dispute in this appeal concerns the eviction of the respondent-tenant from a house located in Chatra Municipality, Jharkhand. The appellant, as the owner and landlord of the property, filed Eviction Suit No. 25/2001, seeking eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and refusal to vacate, as well as for his bona fide need to establish an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. After a contested trial, the trial court decreed the suit on 15.07.2006, ruling in favor of the appellant-landlord based on his bona fide need. The court found that the appellant had both the financial capability and a suitable location for installing the ultrasound machine, as the premises were adjacent to a medical clinic and pathology centre. However, the claim of eviction on the ground of rent default was dismissed.
The trial court’s eviction order was subsequently overturned by the First Appellate Court, and this decision was upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand in Second Appeal No. 317/2006, through a judgment dated 18.08.2022. Aggrieved by the High Court’s ruling, the appellant-landlord has now preferred this appeal before the Supreme Court, solely challenging the denial of eviction based on his bona fide need. The appellant has not contested the dismissal of the suit concerning rent default, making the decree on that issue final.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is whether the appellant is entitled the premises which were in dispute and which the impugned order alienated him from.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
Considering the facts and circumstances, the appellant-landlord has established his bona fide need for the premises. The appeal is allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court are set aside. The eviction suit is decreed in favour of the appellant.
The court reaffirmed the well-settled legal principle that eviction on the ground of bona fide need must be based on a genuine necessity rather than a mere desire to reclaim possession. It held that the landlord is the best judge of which property should be vacated to fulfil a specific need, and tenants cannot dictate such decisions.
In this case, the appellant-landlord demonstrated his bona fide need for the premises to establish an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. The trial court found that the suit premises were the most suitable location due to its proximity to a medical clinic and pathology centre. Additionally, the appellant proved his financial capability to invest in the machine. The appellate courts erred in rejecting the claim solely on the ground that the appellant’s sons lacked expertise in operating the ultrasound machine. The court noted that modern medical equipment is typically operated by hired professionals, and the landlord himself does not need expertise in running the machine.
Regarding a prior eviction suit (Eviction Suit No. 11/1981) that resulted in a compromise in 1988, the court clarified that the compromise did not bar future eviction proceedings. The agreement only ensured the tenant's continued occupancy of certain reconstructed rooms but did not restrict the landlord’s right to seek eviction on fresh grounds, such as bona fide need.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the previous eviction decree of 1988, which was based on a different need, did not undermine the landlord’s right to seek eviction in 2001. The landlord's need must be assessed as of the date of filing the suit, and his requirement for the premises in 2001 was deemed valid and well-established.
Thus, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, and decreed the suit in favour of the appellant-landlord.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the fundamental principle that a landlord’s bona fide need must be given due consideration, provided it is genuine and not merely a pretext for eviction. By setting aside the rulings of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, the court reaffirmed the well-established legal position that the landlord is the best judge of which property should be utilized to meet his requirements. The decision also highlights that tenants cannot impose their preferences on which premises should be vacated. The court emphasized that the appellant-landlord had demonstrated a legitimate and pressing need to establish an ultrasound machine for his unemployed sons, making the eviction legally justified. The fact that the premises were adjacent to a medical clinic and pathology center further reinforced its suitability for the intended purpose, thereby strengthening the landlord’s claim.
Additionally, the judgment clarifies that a past compromise or prior eviction decree does not indefinitely bar the landlord from seeking eviction on new and distinct grounds. The court rightly rejected the appellate courts' reasoning that the landlord’s sons required prior expertise in operating an ultrasound machine, noting that such equipment is typically managed by trained professionals. This reinforces the legal stance that a landlord’s intended use of the premises must be assessed based on necessity rather than technical qualifications. The ruling upholds the landlord’s right to reclaim his property when a bona fide need exists and sets an important precedent in cases where landlords seek eviction to establish a livelihood for their dependents.
info@adhwaitha.com
