According to a ruling by the supreme court, a landlord or property owner has the right to evict a tenant who is using the rented space for legitimate personal purposes, either for himself or his family. It said that the renter lacked the power to impose conditions on the landlord on how the property should be used.
"There must be a genuine necessity, not just a want to have the property abandoned. The best person to determine which of his properties should be evacuated to meet his specific needs is the landlord. In a ruling, the court stated that the tenant had no say in determining which properties the landlord should have abandoned for the reasons stated in the eviction petition.
While allowing an appeal filed by a landlord, Kanahiya Lal, contesting the concurrent orders issued by the district court and jharkhand high court quashing the eviction proceedings initiated against the tenant, Md Ehsan, and others in the Chatra municipality area, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and N. Kotiswar Singh rendered the decision.
The landlord had said that he intended to utilize the space to set up an ultrasound machine center for his two unemployed sons, and a rent control court had already decided in favor of Lal, allowing him to evict Ehsan. However, the renter was declared not evictable by the district court and the high court that followed. Lal, enraged, petitioned the highest court.
The supreme court upheld Lal's argument, ruling that although the landlord may have other properties leased to different people, he cannot be forced to start legal action against the other tenants once he has decided to have the suit premises vacated for the legitimate purpose of setting up an ultrasound machine center for his unemployed sons.
"The appellant landlord is responsible for making this decision, and once he has made the decision to have the suit premises vacated, there is no way to bring out any mistakes or illegalities in his choice.
Second, it has been established by a court of first instance ruling that the suit premises are the best location for ultrasound equipment. The reason for this is that it is the best location for a medical machine since it is next to a pathology center and a medical clinic. As a result, the appellant-landlord's legitimate necessity is clearly demonstrated," stated Justice Mithal, who wrote the ruling.
"There must be a genuine necessity, not just a want to have the property abandoned. The best person to determine which of his properties should be evacuated to meet his specific needs is the landlord. In a ruling, the court stated that the tenant had no say in determining which properties the landlord should have abandoned for the reasons stated in the eviction petition.
While allowing an appeal filed by a landlord, Kanahiya Lal, contesting the concurrent orders issued by the district court and jharkhand high court quashing the eviction proceedings initiated against the tenant, Md Ehsan, and others in the Chatra municipality area, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and N. Kotiswar Singh rendered the decision.
The landlord had said that he intended to utilize the space to set up an ultrasound machine center for his two unemployed sons, and a rent control court had already decided in favor of Lal, allowing him to evict Ehsan. However, the renter was declared not evictable by the district court and the high court that followed. Lal, enraged, petitioned the highest court.
The supreme court upheld Lal's argument, ruling that although the landlord may have other properties leased to different people, he cannot be forced to start legal action against the other tenants once he has decided to have the suit premises vacated for the legitimate purpose of setting up an ultrasound machine center for his unemployed sons.
"The appellant landlord is responsible for making this decision, and once he has made the decision to have the suit premises vacated, there is no way to bring out any mistakes or illegalities in his choice.
Second, it has been established by a court of first instance ruling that the suit premises are the best location for ultrasound equipment. The reason for this is that it is the best location for a medical machine since it is next to a pathology center and a medical clinic. As a result, the appellant-landlord's legitimate necessity is clearly demonstrated," stated Justice Mithal, who wrote the ruling.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel