December 30, 2025: The Supreme Court has ordered the eviction of a tenant who had occupied a commercial property for nearly five decades, holding that once a landlord establishes a genuine need for the premises, the tenant has no right to suggest alternative accommodation. The ruling was delivered by a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi on December 2 while hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment in a dispute concerning a commercial premises situated in Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai.
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the apex court reiterated the settled principle that the landlord is the best judge of his or her requirements. Referring to an earlier 2016 ruling, the bench observed, “The defendant (tenant) cannot dictate to the plaintiff/landlord regarding the suitability of the accommodation and to start the business.”
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the landlord seeking eviction from a non-residential premises on the ground that the property was required for the business needs of his daughter-in-law. The trial court accepted the plea and ordered eviction, concluding that the requirement was genuine. This finding was affirmed by the first appellate court, which held that the landlord had successfully proved bona fide need. The tenant then approached the Bombay High Court, which reversed the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.
Challenging this reversal, the landlord moved the Supreme Court. During the hearing, counsel for the tenant argued that the landlord had vacant space on the second and third floors of the building that could be used instead of the shop occupied by the tenant. The landlord’s counsel opposed the submission.
Criticising the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court said it had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. “The High Court, while reversing the findings concurrently recorded by two courts, went into microscopic scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence,” the bench noted, adding that such reappreciation is impermissible unless the findings are patently illegal or without jurisdiction.
Rejecting the tenant’s plea, the court observed that the upper floors were residential in nature, whereas 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,” it said.
The court also dismissed the argument that the landlord’s case was weakened by obtaining a commercial electricity connection for another room during the trial, holding that subsequent developments do not negate a genuine requirement.
While allowing the eviction, the Supreme Court granted the tenant time until June 30, 2026, to vacate, subject to strict conditions. These include clearing rent arrears within one month, continuing to pay monthly rent, and filing an undertaking within three weeks that no third-party rights will be created. Failure to comply would entitle the landlord to execute the eviction decree immediately.
Source: The Indian Express
