Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 401

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Kanahaiya Lal Arya – Appellant
Versus
Md. Ehshan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3222 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21965 of 2022)
Decided On : 25-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide need of landlord – Landlord is the best Judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need – Tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in suit for eviction.

Headnote:
(A) Rent and Eviction – Eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide need of landlord – Need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated – Landlord is the best Judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need – Tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in suit for eviction. (Para 10)
(B) Rent and Eviction – Eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide need of landlord – Appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get suit premises vacated for bona fide need of establishing ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against other tenants – It is for appellant-landlord to take decision in this regard and once he has decided to get suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision – Bona fide need of appellant-landlord stands duly established – Appellate Court and High Court were not justified in disbelieving bona fide need of appellant- landlord solely on the ground that his two sons do not possess any expertise for running an ultrasound machine – There is no clause in compromise deed which stipulates that appellant-landlord will not initiate any proceeding for eviction against respondents-tenant in future – Impugned judgment and order of High Court and First Appellate Court set aside and suit of appellant-landlord decreed. (Paras 7, 11, 12, 13 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Dispute in this appeal is for the eviction of the respondents-tenant from the premises in dispute i.e., a house existing on Holding No. 80, New Ward No. X, (Old Ward No. IV, Old Holding No. 211) of Chatra Municipality, Jharkhand.
Findings of Court:
Need of the appellant-landlord for getting the suit premises vacated for establishing his two sons has to be seen on the date of filing of the suit i.e., 28.11.2001. On the said date, the need of the appellant-landlord stands established. The said need would not get eroded by any earlier decree of eviction of the year 1988.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Smt. Reshmi Rea Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-landlord and Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned senior counsel for the respondents-tenant.

3. The dispute in this appeal is for the eviction of the respondents-tenant from the premises in dispute i.e., a house existing on Holding No. 80, New Ward No. X, (Old Ward No. IV, Old Holding No. 211) of Chatra Municipality, Jharkhand.

4. The appellant, as the owner and landlord of the said house, filed Eviction Suit No.25/2001 against the respondents- tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and refusal to vacate; and for personal need of the suit premises for establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons.

5. The suit after contest was decreed by the court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2006 on the ground of bona fide need of the appellant-landlord holding that the oral and documentary evidence proves the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord to install the ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons. The appellant-landlord had established his capability to purchase such a machine and had proved his annual income to be Rs.4,00,000/-. He had also proved that the suit premises is the most appropriate place for the installation of such machines as there is a medical clinic and a pathology center adjacent to it. The suit was, however, dismissed on the ground of default in payment of rent.

6. The aforesaid judgment and order of eviction passed by the court of first instance was reversed by the First Appellate Court and the same was also affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 18.08.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.317/2006 ¹, Kahanaiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan & Ors. the appellant-landlord herein has preferred this appeal.

7. It may not be out of context to mention here that the appellant-landlord had not assailed the dismissal of the suit on the ground of default in payment of rent and as such the decree to that effect passed by the court of first instance has become final and conclusive. The appellant- landlord is, thus, confining his case for the decree of eviction only on the ground of bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for the benefit of his two unemployed sons.

8. The submission of Smt. Reshmi Rea Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-landlord, is that the First Appellate Court and the High Court manifestly erred in law in holding that he has failed to prove his bona fide need. No evidence was adduced by him to prove that his two unemployed sons have any expertise in handling the ultrasound machine. The establishment and running of the ultrasound machine is ordinarily done by the doctors or the technicians employed and for that purpose it is not necessary that the sons themselves should have any expertise in running the same. Secondly, the partial eviction of the respondents-tenant in an earlier eviction Suit No.11/1981 from a portion under their tenancy and re-letting it to another person does not affect the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord. The aforesaid partial eviction was for the need of the brother-in-law of the appellant-landlord and not for his two unemployed sons. Also, the said eviction was in respect of a different portion and was much prior to the institution of the present suit or when the cause of action for the present suit arose.

9. To counter the above arguments, Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned senior counsel for the respondents-tenant, submitted that in an earlier proceeding of their eviction from the suit premises, i.e., Eviction Suit No.11/1981, a compromise was arrived at between the parties whereunder the respondents-tenant were allowed to occupy the premises with respect to three pucca rooms constructed by appellant-landlord as tenant in perpetuity. Therefore, the suit for eviction is not maintainable. Secondly, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document