Landlord Cannot Claim Eviction Without Proving Genuine Need: Bombay High Court Overturns Eviction Decree

Bombay High Court in Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya v. Manohar Vithoba Kuntha (Civil Revision Application No. 238 of 2021) quashed an eviction decree issued by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Mumbai. The Court ruled that the landlord had failed to establish the bonafide requirement for evicting the tenant from the suit premises, as alternative premises were available, and the claimed need was unsubstantiated.

The plaintiffs, owners of a property in Kamathipura, Mumbai, had filed an eviction suit in 2011 against the tenant, alleging unlawful subletting, non-user, and bonafide requirement of the premises for the business of the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law. The trial court decreed the eviction in 2017 based on bonafide requirement and initiated an inquiry into mesne profits. The tenant appealed, but the Appellate Bench upheld the eviction order in 2021. The tenant, Parshuram Kanojiya, then approached the High Court.

The central issue was whether the landlord had proven the bonafide requirement of the suit premises for the business of the plaintiff's daughter-in-law. The petitioner argued that the premises were not needed for business purposes, as the plaintiff had alternative space and no significant hardship would result from refusal of the eviction.

The Court noted key admissions from the plaintiff's daughter-in-law during cross-examination. She admitted that the plaintiff no longer resided in the suit building, that another room (Room No. 3) was available and vacant, and that there would be no difficulty in conducting business without evicting the tenant.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne found that the plaintiff's daughter-in-law's admissions during cross-examination undermined the claim of bonafide requirement. The Court observed:

"The witness admitted that the suit premises were not required and that alternative premises were available, thus demolishing the case for bonafide requirement."

The Court further held that, based on the evidence, there was no genuine necessity for the suit premises, as other premises were vacant and suitable for business activities. Additionally, the Court criticized the lower courts for failing to properly assess the tenant’s ongoing business use of the premises, which indicated that the tenant would face greater hardship if evicted.

The Bombay High Court set aside the eviction decrees of the lower courts, ruling that the landlord had failed to prove bonafide requirement. The eviction suit was dismissed, and the tenant was permitted to remain in possession of the premises.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya v. Manohar Vithoba Kuntha