Landlord Need Not Justify Choice Of Particular City While Seeking Eviction On Ground Of Bonafide Need: MP High Court
While dismissing a tenant's appeal against an eviction decree, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord is not required to justify the choice of a particular city while seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 328]
The bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi observed that in the present case, the landlord had established a bona fide requirement of the premises for her elder son, who was pursuing a Company Secretary course.
Remarking that the landlord and her son were "best judges of their requirement" and that said choice did not require further justification, the bench held:
"In fact, once it was established by the plaintiff that her son is pursuing the course of Company Secretary, then if the plaintiff and her son finds it suitable to pursue the course while living at Indore it is their choice and they are the best judge of their requirement. Thus, in view of the documents exhibited as Exhibit P/14 to P/18, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court regarding bonafide need of the elder son of the plaintiff".
The case arose from a suit filed by the landlord seeking eviction, possession, and arrears of rent for a house situated in Khajrana in Indore. Per the landlord, the premises were let out to the tenant on January 18, 2003, at a monthly rent of ₹1,100 pursuant to a rent note. The landlord alleged that the tenant was irregularly paying rent and also used electricity illegally, resulting in an electricity theft case.
The landlord pleaded a bona fide requirement of the premises, stating that her husband was suffering from hypertension and was nearing retirement, and that her elder son was pursuing the Company Secretary Course and intended to continue his education in Indore. The landlord further cited the educational plans of her younger son.
The tenant disputed the landlord's claims, including the rate and commencement of tenancy. According to the tenant, the tenancy had commenced in 1998 at a monthly rent of ₹60, and rent was regularly paid. The tenant also disputed the bona fide requirement cited by the landlord.
The tenant further claimed that an oral agreement to sell was entered into in 2009 for consideration of ₹3 Lakhs, out of which ₹1.5 lakhs were allegedly paid in the presence of witnesses. It was contended that the eviction proceedings were instituted because the landlord was attempting to avoid performance of the alleged agreement.
The trial court nevertheless decreed the suit and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within two months. It was directed to make payment of arrears of rent amounting to ₹1.04 Lakh and payment of rent at ₹1,100 per month from August 1, 2024, until delivery of vacant possession.
The first appellate court affirmed the decree on March 12, 2025, following which the tenant approached the High Court in a second appeal.
The counsel for the appellant/tenant argued that the Trial Court erred in finding that the bona fide need of the plaintiff was proved. It was argued that there was a discrepancy in the documents produced to show the education of the elder son.
Additionally, it was argued that the documents submitted do not show his admission to the course. It was contended that no necessity was shown for the landlord to reside in Indore.
The bench observed that the tenant's argument proceeded on the premise that the landlord was required to establish why the son could not pursue his course from another location.
The bench held that once the landlord had established that her son was pursuing a company secretary course, the decision to pursue the course while residing in Indore was a matter of choice for the landlord and her son.
The bench also considered the landlord's claim that the premises were required in connection with her husband's medical treatment. The court noted that there was no dispute that her husband was undergoing treatment.
The court observed that if the landlord wishes to reside in Indore for the purpose of obtaining better treatment for her husband, such a requirement can be characterised as bona fide. The court further noted that although the alleged oral agreement to sell was entered in 2009, the tenant failed to institute a specific performance suit even by 2026.
Thus, the bench dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Saleem Quraeshi v Saina BI and others, SA-914-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 328
For Appellant: Advocate Arjun Pathak
For Respondent: Advocate Pushpendra Singh Chauhan