Landlord can ask tenant to vacate property for genuine needs: HC

As long as the landlord’s needs his rented premises for a genuine reason, he is free to ask the tenant to vacate his property, the Bombay High Court (HC) has ruled.  While upholding an eviction decree, the HC said that landlords are the best judge of their residential requirements, and it is not up to the tenant to suggest that the former must “adjust” so that his tenancy can continue.

The dispute pertains to a 319-square-foot (sqft) property in South Mumbai. On May 17, 2004, the owners and original plaintiffs issued a notice terminating the tenancy, instructing the tenant to vacate, asserting that the main tenant sublet the premises without written consent. The landlords also said they occupied about 400 sqft along with 11 family members and required the suit premises.

“Apart from a bare denial of the statement that the premises are required by the landlord for their reasonable and bonafide use and the statement that the landlords have more than sufficient premises, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the need of the Plaintiffs is not genuine or bonafide. The landlords have a large family consisting of more than 11 family members. Their children have grown up. These grown-up children should have enough space and privacy to devote their time to studies, without any disturbances,” the HC said while giving its verdict in the Ajay Mahasukhlal Shah versus Chandrakant Babulal Shah and Others case.

“The proven fact is that the need of the landlord for additional accommodation is genuine, honest and conceived in good faith and thus reasonable and bonafide. In such circumstances, challenge to the finding rendered by the courts below on the issue of bonafide and reasonable need of the premises cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and the tenant cannot dictate terms to him as to how he can and how he should adjust in the available premises,” it added.

Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, provides for eviction of tenant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord.

What is bonafide requirement?

In the Shiv Sarup Gupta versus Maheshchand Gupta case, the Supreme Court defined the phrase ‘required bonafide’. According to the top coutt, required bonafide is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire, which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation.

“A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant… The judge of facts should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretense or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafide need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need and genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against,” said the top court.