Home  > Recent Judgements  > Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord Should Choose Another Property to Start Business: Supreme Court

Dec  30- 2025

Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord Should Choose Another Property to Start Business: Supreme Court

RAJANI MANOHAR KUNTHA V PARSHURAM CHUNILAL KANOJIYA

Introduction

In a recent significant reaffirmation of landlord rights under Indian rent control jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord which property should be used to satisfy the landlord’s bona fide requirement. The Court clarified that it is the landlord’s prerogative to decide the suitability of premises for starting a business and that tenants cannot compel landlords to shift their plans to alternative properties suggested by them.

This ruling assumes importance in the context of long-standing tenancies, especially in metropolitan cities, where disputes often arise over claims of bona fide requirement for commercial premises.

Factual Background of the Case

The dispute concerned a non-residential premises situated on the ground floor of a property located at Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. The landlord instituted an eviction suit seeking possession of the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement, asserting that the property was needed to start a business for his daughter-in-law.

  • The Trial Court accepted the landlord’s plea and decreed eviction.
  • The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s findings, agreeing that the requirement was genuine and bona fide.
  • However, the Bombay High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, overturned these concurrent findings, holding that the landlord’s requirement was not bona fide after a detailed re-examination of evidence.

Aggrieved by this reversal, the landlord approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined two core legal issues:

  1. Whether a revisional court can reappreciate evidence in minute detail and overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts.
  2. Whether a tenant can suggest alternative accommodation and compel the landlord to treat such accommodation as suitable for fulfilling bona fide business requirements.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

  1. Limits of Revisional Jurisdiction

The Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi strongly criticised the High Court’s approach. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is narrow and supervisory, not appellate in nature.

It observed that:

  • Microscopic reappreciation of evidence is impermissible in revision.
  • When two courts have concurrently recorded findings of fact, interference is justified only if such findings are perverse or contrary to law.

In the present case, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had both found the landlord’s need to be genuine. The High Court’s detailed reassessment of evidence was therefore held to be “ex facie without jurisdiction.”

  1. Tenant Cannot Dictate Suitability of Premises

On the issue of bona fide requirement, the Supreme Court categorically rejected the tenant’s contention that the landlord had other available space or should start the business from some other premises.

Key observations included:

  • The landlord had specifically sought the ground-floor commercial premises, which was suitable for running a business.
  • The upper floors of the building were residential in nature and could not be treated as viable commercial alternatives.
  • Obtaining a commercial electricity connection for another room during pendency of proceedings does not negate the landlord’s bona fide requirement.

The Court reiterated that the tenant cannot propose alternative accommodation or impose their assessment of suitability on the landlord.

Reliance on Earlier Precedent

The Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA V. ASHA DEVI [(2016) 10 SCC 209], wherein it was held that:

  • The landlord is the best judge of their residential or commercial needs.
  • Courts should not substitute the landlord’s decision with their own assessment unless mala fides are established.

Echoing this principle, the Court observed:

“The defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein.”

Final Decision of the Supreme Court

Allowing the landlord’s appeal, the Supreme Court:

  • Set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
  • Restored the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
  • Held that the landlord’s bona fide requirement was genuine and legally sustainable.

Grant of Time to Vacate

Taking into account that the tenant had been in occupation of the premises for nearly five decades, the Supreme Court adopted a balanced approach and granted time until 30 June 2026 to vacate the property, subject to strict conditions:

  • Payment of all arrears of rent within one month.
  • Continued payment of monthly rent regularly.
  • Filing of a customary undertaking before the Bombay High Court.

The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions would entitle the landlord to execute the eviction decree forthwith.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching implications for landlord-tenant disputes, particularly involving commercial premises:

  • It reinforces that bona fide requirement is to be assessed from the landlord’s perspective, not the tenant’s convenience.
  • It curtails the tendency of revisional courts to act as appellate forums.
  • It provides clarity that tenants cannot prolong possession by suggesting alternative properties or questioning the landlord’s business choices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in RAJANI MANOHAR KUNTHA V. PARSHURAM CHUNILAL KANOJIYA marks a clear and authoritative reaffirmation of settled principles of tenancy law. By holding that a tenant cannot dictate the suitability of premises or compel a landlord to start business elsewhere, the Court has strengthened the legal protection accorded to genuine landlord requirements, while also ensuring procedural discipline in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

This decision will serve as a valuable precedent for future eviction proceedings grounded in bona fide commercial needs.