Tenant Cannot Tell Landlord Which Property to Use for Business

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi in the case of Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya (2025) set aside a Bombay High Court order and restored an eviction decree, holding that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord which accommodation should be treated as suitable for the landlord's bona fide requirement. 

What was the Background of Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya (2025) Case? 

• The eviction suit concerned a commercial premises located on the ground floor of a property at Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. 
• The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for starting a business for his daughter-in-law. 
• The Trial Court accepted the landlord's case and decreed eviction in favor of the landlord. 
• The First Appellate Court also upheld the Trial Court's decision and affirmed the eviction decree. 
• The tenant approached the Bombay High Court, which exercised its revisional jurisdiction to review the matter. 
• The Bombay High Court reversed the concurrent findings of both lower courts after undertaking detailed scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence. 
• The High Court held that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and set aside the eviction decree. 
• The tenant had been in occupation of the premises for nearly five decades at the time of the Supreme Court judgment. 
• The tenant argued that the landlord had other space available in the building and had obtained a commercial electricity connection for another room during the pendency of proceedings. 
• The upper floors of the building were residential in nature, while the ground floor was commercial. 
• The landlord specifically sought the ground-floor commercial premises for his daughter-in-law's business venture. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court found that the Bombay High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by engaging in microscopic reappreciation of evidence in revisional proceedings. 
• The bench observed that the landlord had specifically sought the ground-floor premises, which was commercial in nature, for his daughter-in-law's business, while the upper floors were residential and therefore not suitable alternatives. 
• The Court rejected the tenant's contention that the landlord had other available space, holding that such factors could not nullify the landlord's bona fide requirement. 
• The Court reiterated the principle that a tenant cannot propose alternative accommodation and compel the landlord to accept the tenant's assessment of suitability. 
• Relying on its earlier precedent in Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi (2016), the Court underscored that it is the landlord's prerogative to decide where and how he or his family members should conduct business. 
• The bench stated "The defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein." 
• The Court concluded that the High Court's approach of re-examining evidence in minute detail was "ex facie without jurisdiction" in revisional proceedings. 
• The Court held that since the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were neither perverse nor without authority of law, the High Court's interference was unwarranted. 
• The Supreme Court restored the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. 
• The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would entitle the landlord to execute the decree forthwith. 

What is an Eviction Decree? 

About: 

• An eviction decree is a court order that directs a tenant or occupant to vacate the premises and restore possession to the landlord or rightful owner. 
• It is a judicial remedy available to landlords under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) when a tenant refuses to vacate the property despite valid grounds for eviction. 
• The decree is passed after the court is satisfied that the landlord has established legal grounds for eviction, such as non-payment of rent, bona fide requirement, unauthorized subletting, or misuse of premises. 
• An eviction decree is enforceable through the execution proceedings of the civil court, ensuring the landlord regains lawful possession of the property. 

Execution of Eviction Decree: 

• The execution of an eviction decree is governed by Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• Order XXI, Rule 35 of the CPC specifically deals with the delivery of possession of immovable property to the decree holder (landlord). 
• Under Rule 35, the court may, if necessary, remove any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate, and may also break open any lock or bolt for delivering possession. 
• The executing court has the power to use reasonable force to ensure that the decree holder obtains vacant possession of the premises. 
• The eviction decree must be executed within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, which is generally 12 years from the date of the decree.