Tenants can be evicted if space needed for business: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday held that a landlord could seek the eviction of tenant under the Rent Control Act if the premise is required to conduct a business. 

A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and A.M. Kanwilkar ruled that under the Act, the landlord would need to establish only a reasonable requirement. “It should not only be a simple desire… (but) it must be a genuine need. Whether the requirement is based on a desire or need will depend on the facts of each case, (such as) whether the requirement of the landlord for own occupation could also mean occupation by a member of the family, in this case, the son,” the court ruled.

The apex court was hearing an appeal against a high court order, which had overturned a trial court order allowing appellant Mehmooda Gulshan’s plea seeking the eviction of her tenant from her premises in Jammu & Kashmir for the bona fide use of her son. The trial court had decreed the suit in her favour but the high court reversed the order on an appeal from the tenant.

“We fail to understand the approach taken by the high court. It has clearly come in evidence of the appellant that her one son is unemployed and in view of unemployment, he was frustrated. The appellant’s husband had contracted second marriage and deserted the appellant (who) herself was unemployed with no source of income,” said the Supreme Court.

The bench noted that the premises sought to be evicted is not held for the benefit of the son alone but the whole family. “It has been established … that the landlord was not happy and content with the paltry rent received from the premises. It is for the landlord to decide as to the best use the premises should be put to. There is nothing wrong on the part of a landlord in making plans for a better living by doing business engaging her son,” the bench noted in its order.

Writing the judgment, Justice Kurian Joseph said it seems that the connotation of the term “need” or “requirement” should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. “Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds,” the court said. 

In the present case, having regard to the background of the son who is unemployed and undereducated, the appellant was able to establish that business was the available option and the tenanted premises were the only space available. “Thus, the genuine need for the premises has been established. Unfortunately, the high court has missed these crucial aspects,” the bench held and allowed the appeal.