Landlord's Family's Needs Also Count As 'Bona Fide Requirement' For Tenant's Eviction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 24) observed that the eviction is not restricted to the bona fide need of the landlord, even the landlord's family requirement would qualify as bona fide need for eviction of the tenant.

“It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even the requirement of the family members would be covered.”, the court observed.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and KV Viswanathan decided the prolonged legal battle between the Appellant/landlord and the Respondent/tenant, where the Respondent continued to remain in the Appellant's property for 73 years, including 63 years after the lease expired.

The Court allowed the Appellant's plea for eviction of the Respondent, noting that he has a bona fide need for his property for his disabled and unemployed son, who had no other property and had a meagre income to support his family.

The Respondent/tenant resisted the eviction, claiming that a hardship would be caused if he were evicted from the property. However, no proof was shown on his behalf to indicate that at any time during the pendency of the long-drawn-out litigation, he made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it.

Dismissing the Respondent's claim, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan draws reference to the case of Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155 noted that if the tenant fails to bring into account a proof that he made an attempt to find alternative accommodation, then this factor will be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide.

“In this case, nothing is on record to show that the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63 years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record to show that he was unable to get one.”, the court said.

Further, the Court found that “nothing has been brought on record to show that the business of the appellant's family is so vast as to neutralize their bona fide claim to evict the respondents from the suit property.”

In light of the above, the Court concluded that the Appellant's bona fide requirement for the property was genuine. Given that the tenant had not sought alternative accommodation over a span of 63 years, and considering that he did not operate a large business on the rented premises, his objection to the eviction was dismissed.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: MURLIDHAR AGGARWAL (D.) THR. HIS LR. ATUL KUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS MAHENDRA PRATAP KAKAN (D.) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Ms. Shivali Singh, Adv. Mr. Vedant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR