Eviction of Tenant on Grounds of Bona Fide Need – Premises Required for Installation of Ultrasound Machine for Landlord’s Unemployed Sons

The Supreme Court held that:

The landlord’s need was real and not merely a desire. The landlord had the right to choose which property to vacate for his needs. The lack of expertise of the landlord’s sons in operating the ultrasound machine was irrelevant. The earlier compromise agreement did not create perpetual tenancy or bar future eviction suits.

Acts and Sections:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition

2. Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 – Section 11(1)(c) – Eviction on Grounds of Bona Fide Need

Subjects:

Eviction Suit – Bona Fide Need – Landlord’s Right – Unemployed Sons – Ultrasound Machine – Suitable Accommodation – Premises Adjacent to Medical Clinic – Pathology Center – Earlier Compromise – No Perpetual Tenancy

Nature of Litigation: The appeal was filed by the appellant-landlord seeking eviction of the respondents-tenant from the disputed premises on the grounds of bona fide need.

Relief Sought: The appellant-landlord sought a decree of eviction for establishing an ultrasound machine to provide employment for his two unemployed sons.

Reason for Filing the Case: The appellant claimed bona fide need for the premises as it was the most suitable location due to its proximity to a medical clinic and pathology center, which would facilitate the installation and operation of the ultrasound machine.

Previous Decisions:

1. Trial Court: Decreed the eviction suit on grounds of bona fide need (15.07.2006).

2. First Appellate Court: Reversed the Trial Court’s decision.

3. High Court: Affirmed the First Appellate Court’s decision (18.08.2022).

Issues:

1. Whether the landlord’s need for the disputed premises was bona fide.

2. Whether the landlord’s sons needed expertise to operate the ultrasound machine.

3. Whether the previous compromise agreement created a perpetual tenancy.

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Appellant’s Counsel: Asserted bona fide need and highlighted the suitability of the premises. (b) Respondents’ Counsel: Claimed sufficient accommodation was available and cited the earlier compromise agreement.

Ratio:

The Court emphasized that the landlord’s right to seek eviction on grounds of bona fide need cannot be curtailed by the tenant’s objections. The proximity of the premises to medical facilities further strengthened the landlord’s case.