Supreme Court says tenant can’t dictate terms, orders eviction after 50 years

The Supreme Court granted time to the tenant to vacate the premises till June 30, 2026. (Infographics generated using AI)

Background

The dispute arose from a suit seeking eviction from a non-residential premises located at Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai.

The landlord instituted a civil suit contending that the premises were required for the business needs of his daughter-in-law.

The trial court accepted the landlord’s claim and ordered eviction, holding that the requirement was genuine.

This finding was upheld by the first appellate court, which said that the landlord had successfully established that his requirements are genuine.

Aggrieved by the verdicts, the tenant approached the Bombay High Court, which set aside the judgments of the two courts.

Following this, the landlord approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court’s verdict.

Argument

Counsel for the tenant had argued that the landlord had other vacant space on the second and third floors of the building, which could be used instead of the shop occupied by the tenant.

From the order: The landlord instituted a civil suit contending that the premises were required for the business needs of his daughter-in-law.

The counsel for the landlord opposed the submissions.

Observations

The Supreme Court criticised the high court’s approach, saying it had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-examining the evidence in detail.

“The High Court, while reversing the findings concurrently recorded by two courts, went into microscopic scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence,” said the bench.

It added that such an exercise is not allowed unless the lower courts’ orders are clearly illegal or without authority.

Rejecting the tenant’s argument suggesting the alternative to the landlord, the top court noted that the upper floors were residential in nature, while the ground-floor premises were suitable for commercial use.

“The defendant proposing alternative accommodation cannot dictate to the plaintiff-landlord to accept the suitability of the accommodation and to nullify the need,” the apex court said.

The bench also dismissed the tenant’s claim that taking a commercial electricity connection for another room during the trial weakened the landlord’s case. It held that such developments do not negate a genuine requirement.

While ruling in favour of the landlord, the court took note of the fact that the tenant had been occupying the premises for nearly 50 years and granted time to vacate the premises until June 30, 2026.

However, it imposed various conditions including payment of all rent arrears within one month, continue paying monthly rent regularly, and file an undertaking within three weeks stating that no third-party rights will be created.

The court made it clear that if these conditions are not followed, the landlord will be free to execute the eviction decree immediately.