Even Equal Hardship Must Yield to the Owner’s Bona Fide Need: Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act

“A Tenant Cannot Dictate the Landlord’s Needs—Owner Is Best Judge of Personal Requirement”: In a meticulously reasoned judgment the Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad) declined to interfere with concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which had granted eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, on the ground of the landlord’s bona fide need and the absence of greater hardship to the tenants.

Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar, sitting in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, firmly reiterated the well-established position that a landlord is the best judge of his residential or occupational needs, and that mere allegations of hardship by tenants without cogent evidence cannot defeat a well-established bona fide requirement.

“Even if hardship is equal, the law favours the landlord whose need is genuine,” the Court held, emphasizing that Section 16(1)(g) of the Act does not require the landlord to establish ‘greater’ hardship, if the tenant fails to rebut the presumption of alternative accommodation or fails to show sincere efforts to find one.

Landlord’s Son’s Marriage and Expanding Family Validates Personal Need: Concurrent Findings Not Disturbed

The case involved a tenanted room in Bhusawal, originally leased to the predecessor of the present tenants. After a long tenancy chain, the landlord-plaintiff (Omprakash Sharma) filed a civil suit in 2011 seeking eviction on the ground that his family of eight had outgrown their existing accommodation and that his son was newly married, creating a pressing need for the suit premises. The landlord also pleaded that the tenants had already acquired another house and were no longer residing in the suit property.

The Trial Court, in a judgment dated 31 December 2015, granted the eviction decree. The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 20 April 2019, confirmed the decree. The tenants then invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, challenging both courts’ findings as erroneous and unsustainable.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court stated:

“The courts below have concurrently found, based on Exhs. 59 and 60 and oral deposition of the Defendants themselves, that alternate accommodation was available to the tenants. These are findings of fact. This Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in revision.”

“Revisional Court Is Not a Second Court of Appeal”: Jurisdiction Narrow, Limited to Perversity or Illegality

The Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional interference, making it clear that concurrent findings on bona fide requirement and hardship can only be disturbed if perverse, unsupported by evidence, or tainted by a jurisdictional error.

“I have carefully scanned the findings recorded by both courts. There is no jurisdictional error nor any perversity that would vitiate the decree of eviction,” the Court held.

The Court drew strength from multiple precedents, including:

• Shankar Bhairoba Vadangekar v. Ganpati Appa Gatare, 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 131

• Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies, 1996(3) CCC 154 (SC)

• Kewalchand Nemechand Mehta v. Mrs. Mani Framji Mody, 2007(1) AIR Bom R. 798

• Rafiq Ahmed Qureshi v. Iqbal Khan, 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 337

• Murlidhar Aggarwal (D) v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D), 2025 INSC 564

Citing Murlidhar Aggarwal (2025), the Court reiterated:

“Bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed and includes the requirement of family members. The tenant’s views cannot override the landlord’s perception of his need.”

Hardship Must Be Proven—Tenants’ Failure to Seek Alternative Accommodation Is Fatal

A critical ground rejected by the High Court was the tenants’ vague claim of greater hardship. The Court categorically found that the tenants had acquired another residential house, and there was no evidence of any genuine attempt to seek alternate accommodation.

“Except for bare pleadings, no evidence was placed to demonstrate any attempt to find a new residence. When other family members similarly employed have acquired their own houses, the claim of hardship by Defendant No.3 falls flat,” observed the Court.

The Court relied on the principle laid down in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1:

“It is quite possible the tenant may have to pay more rent. But that would not preclude the landlord from getting possession once he proves genuine need.”

Modification of Certain Findings by Appellate Court Does Not Affect Eviction Decree

One of the challenges raised by the tenants was that the First Appellate Court modified the Trial Court’s findings on Issues 3 and 5, and since there was no cross-appeal, this modification should invalidate the decree.

The Court dismissed this objection as merely academic and inconsequential:

“Whether rightly modified or not, the core ground of eviction—bona fide need under Section 16(1)(g)—remains unaffected. The grounds under Section 16(1) are not mutually exclusive.”

The Court relied on Madhukar Laxman Umalkar v. Keshao Laxman Shilawant, 2005(6) Bom C.R. 393, to reiterate that:

“Once bona fide need is proved, the suit is maintainable irrespective of the success or failure on other alternative grounds.”

“Landlord Is Best Judge of His Needs—Tenants Cannot Oppose His Vision of Family Growth”

The judgment strongly reinforces the settled principle that a landlord need not prove his preference through the tenant’s lens.

Quoting from Kewalchand Nemechand Mehta, the Court said:

“If the landlord finds it more convenient that one more flat or room is required, it is his decision which cannot be subjected to the tenant’s choice.”

Similarly, the Court cited Rafiq Ahmed Qureshi to stress:

“If hardship is equal, decree of eviction follows. In this case, the Defendants didn’t even make the effort to prove hardship. Meanwhile, the landlord’s family has grown, and the son has married.”

Petition Dismissed, Eviction Decree Stands, Tenant Directed to Vacate Within 3 Months

In a firm and unambiguous conclusion, Justice Kadethankar held:

“The tenants could not dislodge the Trial Court’s and Appellate Court’s findings on bona fide need or hardship. There is no perversity or jurisdictional defect. Revision must fail.”

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to vacate the premises within three months.

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025