Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1016

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Amrik Singh Chana – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Calcico Textiles – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4338 of 2015, Civil Appeal No. 4340 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 5339 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 5340 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 5424 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 5351 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 5358 of 2015 With Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13574 of 2015
Decided on : 05-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Govind Narayan Kaushik, Adv., Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv., Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR

Landlords must provide sufficient evidence of bona fide need and continuous occupation for successful eviction petitions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The judgment upheld the dismissal of the landlord's petition for eviction based on bona fide requirements and non-payment of rent - The High Court found sufficient evidence supporting the respondents' case. (Paras 2-4)

(B) Tenancy Law - The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish bona fide need and continuous occupation.

Facts of the case:
The landlord challenged the dismissal of eviction petitions, arguing that the premises were needed for personal use and that tenants had not paid rent for four months.

Findings of Court:
The Rent Controller dismissed the landlord's petitions as insufficient evidence was presented for bona fide intent and continuous occupation of the premises.

Issues: The main issues were whether the landlord's need for the premises was bona fide and whether the tenants had vacated for four months.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that landlords bear the burden of proof in eviction petitions, highlighting the necessity for substantial evidence to demonstrate both bona fide need and tenant occupancy.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to high court judgment regarding premises. (Para 1 , 3)
2. high court found judgment well-reasoned. (Para 2 , 4)
3. court's decision to dispose of appeals. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

ORDER :

1. The appellant in C.A.No.4338 of 2025 lays challenge to the judgment and order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No.4263 of 2005, titled “Amrik Singh Chana vs. M/s. Calico Textiles, Faridabad”.

2. We are of the considered view that no interference is warranted, as it is a well-reasoned judgment rendered by the High Court in dismissing the Revision Petition(s) preferred by the appellant(s)/landlord(s).

3. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition(s) filed by the appellant(s), holding that the appellant(s) had failed to establish that the premises in question were required for his/their bona fide use and that the respondents had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months. Also, that the respondents had failed to pay the rent for the demised premises, respectively held by them for the period in question.

4. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has extensively dealt with and interpreted the relevant statutory provisions, and appreciated the evidence led by the parties.

5. In view of the same, the appeals along with the connected Special Leave Petition, are disposed of.

6. However, it is clarified that should the appellant(s) choose to file any fresh petition, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document