Eviction of a tenant by a landlord on the ground that the premises are genuinely required for personal use, family occupation, or business purposes is a well-recognized legal ground in India. Protection given to tenants under various Rent Control Acts is balanced by the right of property owners to reclaim possession when the property is reasonably and bona fide required by them. This ground prevents misuse of tenancy protection while safeguarding legitimate landlord interests.
Statutory Framework
Different states have rent control statutes — e.g., Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA), Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, etc. — that allow eviction on bona fide requirement grounds.
Under most rent laws (for example, Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act):
- A landlord may apply for eviction if the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord or his dependent family member for occupation.
- The landlord must show no reasonably suitable accommodation is available elsewhere.
In many rent statutes (including Rajasthan), the landlord must also refrain from re-letting the premises for a statutory period (commonly three years), failing which the tenant may seek restoration of possession.
Legal Principles
Bona Fide Requirement Must Be Genuine
Judicial interpretation consistently holds that a landlord’s requirement must be:
- Real, honest, and not fictitious,
- More than a mere desire or wish,
- Based on actual need for personal, family, or lawful business use.
The Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde (1999) observed that “reasonable and bona fide requirement” is not equivalent to “dire need,” but must be something in between a wish and a compelling necessity — i.e., not fanciful. Recent rulings reinforce a liberal construction of bona fide need, especially for family members (e.g., Murlidhar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan, 2025 INSC 564, where the Court held that requirement for family (including a disabled son) must be liberally construed).
Presumption in Favour of the Landlord
In eviction proceedings grounded on genuine requirement, courts generally presume the landlord’s stated need is bona fide. Once the landlord establishes basic facts (ownership, tenancy, claimed requirement), the burden shifts to the tenant to rebut the presumption with substantive evidence showing the requirement is not genuine. Mere assertion by the tenant is insufficient. This foundational principle was reaffirmed in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778.
Landlord as Best Judge of His Requirement
Courts have repeatedly held that landlords are the best judges of the accommodation required by them, and tenants cannot dictate where, how, or which property the landlord ought to use.
This was strongly upheld in recent Supreme Court decisions:
- Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan (2025): The landlord is the best judge of which property to vacate for his specific need (e.g., setting up an ultrasound business for unemployed sons); tenants cannot compel eviction from alternative properties.
- Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya (2026): Tenants cannot dictate suitable premises or override the landlord’s prerogative for family business needs.
Delhi High Court cases in 2025–2026 echo this, e.g., upholding eviction for family financial independence or medical needs without tenant interference.
Key Case Law Examples
- Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778: Foundational for the presumption of bona fide need and shifting onus to the tenant.
- Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash (Delhi): Reiterates that eviction petitions for bona fide requirement create a special category with inbuilt tenant protections, but the claim survives judicial scrutiny.
Recent Supreme Court Cases (2025–2026)
Murlidhar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (2025): Bona fide requirement must be liberally construed to include family members’ needs (e.g., for a disabled son’s support after decades of tenancy); ended a 63-year dispute with eviction ordered.
Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan (2025): Landlord’s choice of premises for business (ultrasound setup for sons) cannot be questioned; availability of other properties does not negate bona fide need.
Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya (2026): High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence in revision under Article 227 when concurrent findings favour bona fide need; restored eviction for daughter-in-law’s business after 50-year tenancy.
Delhi High Court — 2025–2026 Decisions:
- Upheld eviction for senior citizens/medical needs (e.g., avoiding stairs due to health issues) or family business (e.g., unemployed husband’s dry fruit shop), emphasizing no detailed justification required and financial affluence irrelevant.
- Set aside orders where evidence was insufficient, stressing genuine proof over presumptions alone (e.g., cases involving medical records/site plans).
- Reinforced that tenants cannot dispute relationships via oral claims or dictate family use.
Other Illustrations
A landlord’s claim for property needed for daughter’s marriage, son’s business, or family rehabilitation has been upheld where circumstances support bona fide need and no suitable alternate accommodation exists.
Rights and Restrictions Post-Eviction
Once a landlord secures eviction on genuine requirement grounds:
- He is usually restricted from re-letting for a statutory period (commonly 3 years), failing which the tenant may seek restoration.
- The landlord must use the property for the stated purpose; deviation may lead to consequences under the rent act.
Practical Considerations
Because of the presumption in favour of the landlord:
- Tenants must present documentary evidence (e.g., alternate accommodation proof, existing use) to rebut bona fide requirement.
- Courts assess the totality of facts, including reasonable accommodation availability, landlord’s prior conduct, and sincerity of the stated requirement. Recent cases stress liberal interpretation for family needs but require cogent evidence from landlords.
Conclusion
The ground of genuine requirement for eviction reflects a careful legal balance between tenant protection and property rights of landlords. Judicial interpretation, especially in 2025–2026 rulings, affirms that:
- A landlord’s need, if proven real and bona fide (liberally construed for family), justifies eviction,
- The law presumes such requirement to be genuine,
- Tenants bear the onus to challenge with credible evidence, and cannot dictate the landlord’s choices.
Understanding this evolving legal terrain — reinforced by recent Supreme Court emphasis on landlord prerogative and limited High Court interference — is crucial for both landlords and tenants to navigate eviction disputes fairly within statutory safeguards.
