Eviction Appeal: Landlord's Bona Fide Need for Premises Overruled by Lower Courts, Reinstated by Supreme Court.
25 February 2025
Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law
This case of Kanahaiya Lal Arya v/s Md. Ehshan & Others., involves a landlord (the appellant) seeking the eviction of his tenant (the respondents) from a house in Jharkhand. The appellant filed an eviction suit in 2001, citing two reasons: the tenant's default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide need to use the premises for establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. The trial court initially ruled in favor of eviction due to the landlord's bona fide need, but the First Appellate Court and the High Court reversed the decision.
The appellant argued that the lower courts erred in dismissing his bona fide need, stating that the tenant's refusal to vacate affected his sons' business prospects. The landlord also explained that expertise in running the ultrasound machine wasn’t necessary for his sons, as technicians would manage the equipment. Further, the appellant clarified that an earlier eviction suit from 1981 (for a different need) did not negate his current claim for eviction.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that his bona fide need for the premises to establish his sons' business was valid. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction decree was reinstated.