Landlord Prerogative To Decide Business Premises Cannot Be Overridden By Tenant: SC

Mumbai, Dec 30 (KNN) The Supreme Court has held that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord which accommodation should be treated as suitable for the landlord’s bona fide requirement, nor can the tenant compel the landlord to start a business at premises suggested by the tenant.

The bench, comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, allowed an appeal filed by a landlord and set aside a Bombay High Court order that had overturned eviction decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

Case Background

The dispute involved a ground-floor commercial premises at Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. The landlord filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, intending to use the space for his daughter-in-law’s business. 

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had decreed eviction in favour of the landlord. However, the Bombay High Court, acting in revisional jurisdiction, reversed the earlier decisions, holding that the landlord’s requirement was not bona fide after examining the pleadings and evidence in detail.

Supreme Court Observations

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had exceeded its revisional powers, stating that microscopic reappreciation of evidence is impermissible in revision, particularly when two courts have concurrently recorded findings in favour of the landlord. 

The landlord had specifically sought the ground-floor commercial space, as the upper floors were residential and unsuitable for the intended business. While the tenant argued that the landlord had other available space and had obtained a commercial electricity connection for a room during proceedings, the Court rejected these claims, noting that such factors do not negate the landlord’s bona fide requirement. 

Relying on precedent from Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi [(2016) 10 SCC 209], the Court further emphasised that the landlord has the prerogative to decide where and how a business should be conducted, and the tenant cannot dictate alternatives.

"The defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff- landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein," the Court observed.

Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s detailed re-examination of evidence was ‘ex facie without jurisdiction’ in revisional proceedings. Since the Trial Court and First Appellate Court findings were neither perverse nor legally untenable, interference was unwarranted.

The Court restored the eviction decree and granted the tenant time until June 30, 2026, to vacate the premises, provided that the arrears of rent are paid within one month, monthly rent continues to be paid, and a customary undertaking is filed before the Bombay High Court.

The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would enable the landlord to execute the decree immediately.

(KNN Bureau)