Necessity Of Rented Property For Bonafide Use Is To Be Adjudged From Landlord's Perspective, Not From Perspective Of Tenant: Rajasthan HC

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that it was not for the tenant to suggest or show that the landlord did not have any bonafide necessity of the rented premises.

In doing so the court underscored that the necessity of a rented property for bonafide use has to be adjudged from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant. 

The observation was made by Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur who was hearing a petition against the decision of the Rent Appellant Tribunal that had allowed the appeal against the decision of the Rent Tribunal allowing the application for eviction of the tenant-petitioner filed by the landlord-respondent.

"In the humble opinion of this Court, it is for the landlord to decide and take a call for how and when the rented premises is required to be used by the Owner of the Property i.e. the landlord. This Court is of the view that it is not within the domain of the tenant to suggest or to show that the landlord is not having the bonafide necessity for the rented premises. The necessity of a rented property for bonafide use is required to be adjudged from the perspective of the landlord and not from the perspective of the tenant," it said.

The petitioner had taken a shop on rent prior to 1995. The shop was purchased by the respondent in 1995 and thereafter an application was filed by her for eviction of the tenant. This application was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal. However, an appeal against this decision before the Appellant Rent Tribunal was allowed against which the present petition was moved before the Court by the tenant.

It was the case of the tenant that the landlord-respondent had no bonafide necessity of the rented premises since there were a number of shops available with her.

On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the landlord that she was in need of the shop for undertaking her business activities and there were no other shops that could be used for the same.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that “Rent Appellant Tribunal, Udaipur has correctly appreciated the facts submitted before it and has come to the conclusion that there is no other shop which is available to the respondent for undertaking her business activities. In the humble opinion of this Court, it is for the landlord to decide and take a call for how and when the rented premises is required to be used by the Owner of the Property i.e. the landlord.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Rakesh Sen v Smt. Ajab Bano

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 48

Click Here To Read/Download Order